↓
 
Home » On the underpinnings of morality

On the underpinnings of morality

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Bill K” writes:

But to never discuss the underpinnings of morality is a problem. So my hope is that she [the woman who was discussing anti-Semitism in the video], and you, in other situations, are able to defend against “Well, that’s just your opinion.”

If you’ve been blogging as long as I have, you find that there are a huge number of topics that you’ve at least touched on – if only you can remember what they are, and then locate the posts in which they’re discussed. This post from 2020, itself a recycling of an earlier post, is highly relevant to “Bill K’s” remarks. The comments there are worth reading as well. The post deals with natural rights versus relativism and “openness.”

I also recommend reading this post from 2008 on moral relativism. It is probably even more on point in terms of the topic of the underpinnings of morality. An excerpt:

[The anthropologist] Kluckhohn spent a goodly portion of his career attempting to derive these universal moral rules, although it’s not clear that he was especially successful in doing so. But the idea that there is a universal morality, and that we can ascertain (or receive through divine revelation) its laws, is the basis of most ethics (and of most religions).

The Jews happen to have been one of the first peoples to declare that there are some universal moral codes by which all humans should live. Other religions that came after Judaism also aspired to offer a universal morality, but unlike Judaism these were proselytizing religions (for example, Christianity and Islam) that considered it their destiny to spread their own particular faith throughout humankind as well. Of course, by adopting those religions, a convert would adopt their rules. But Judaism was unique (at least, as far as I know) in being a non-proselytizing religion that nevertheless still endeavored to suggest some basic rules for moral human behavior that would apply to all people.

These rules that Judaism offered to the world were not the Ten Commandments, as some might imagine. No, the Ten Commandments were originally meant for Jews only (in fact, there are supposedly 613 commandments that observant Jews are supposed to fulfill). I’m referring instead to what are known as the Noahide Laws, which according to Talmudic tradition were given to all humankind: Noah’s descendents, survivors of the flood.

These rules are related to but somewhat different than the Ten Commandments. According to the Talmud, not just Jews but “Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come,” and righteousness is defined as following these Noahide rules:

1. Prohibition of Idolatry: There is only one God. You shall not make for yourself an idol.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder.
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: Revere God and do not blaspheme.
6. Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
7. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to fairly judge observance of the preceding six laws.

The details of these laws and how they came to be are less relevant to the subject of this post than the mere fact that Judaism posits that there are such laws for all cultures and all peoples, which of course is not very relativistic of it.

Likewise, the Founding Fathers of the United States believed in certain truths that held for all humankind …

Comments

On the underpinnings of morality — 36 Comments

  1. The Golden Rule covers all but 1 & 5 of the 7 Noahide rules. Yet the proposition that there is only one God upon which 1 & 5 rest… make regarding them as ‘moral rules’ problematic.

    Especially when Genesis 3:22 is considered; “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:” KJV

    Every English translation uses the plural us… a consistent mistranslation?

  2. Of God, gods, mortal gods, experts, and atheists…

    Religion is a behavioral protocol: morality in a universal frame, ethics in a relative frame, law where it is enforceable, and pride and prejudice where it is socially viable. That said, judge a philosophy by the character of its principles, not principals.

  3. God is one and a multiplicity in the royal mode, characterized as a trinity in the Christian faith.

  4. Paradox A: Moral absolutism is absolutely bad. Moral relativism is absolutely good.

    Paradox B: Is it true that there is no such thing as “truth”?

    This is one of your best ever posts Neo. It (and it’s links) boils down our present cultural divide to one of it’s most basic causes. Very clarifying for me. It cuts through all the progressive wokeness, cancel culture, oppressed vs oppressors, etc. arguments that are really just symptoms.

  8. THANK YOU, NEO! I totally agree with your points. I confess you’ve been writing posts long before I started reading them, but it’s good to periodically return to the basics.
    People have said that politics is downstream of culture.
    It seems to me that culture is downstream of worldview and that worldview is downstream of religion. The basic question of all is what meaning is there to life. God’s covenant with Noah addresses that at its most basic and for all people.

  9. And I’d add that it’s a lousy physician who gives analgesics for pain without addressing the root cause, whether infection, cancer, or whatever.

    Likewise it’s lousy policy to throw money or nice words at a societal problem without addressing the factors that underlie it. And if such factors include evil behavior or evil worldview, it’s societal malpractice to ignore them or cover them over.

    We all need a boost of moral courage from time to time, myself included.

  10. Geoffrey Britain – I’m not sure how it makes sense in the original Hebrew, but the “us” plural makes perfect sense to a Christian who believes in the trinity – three persons, one God. (Or at least it makes about as much sense as the trinity does in the first place.)

    I would be interested to know if the versions of the Torah used in Jewish practice include the plural and, if so, if there is any Jewish teaching on that point.

  11. the man is become as one of us

    Perhaps us is the royal we, majestic plural, or royal plural.

  15. Geoffrey Britain:
    The Golden Rule covers all but 1 & 5 of the 7 Noahide rules. Yet the proposition that there is only one God upon which 1 & 5 rest… make regarding them as ‘moral rules’ problematic.

    Indeed. The rules read to me that, despite anything I do in life upholding all but those two, I’m not considered righteous because I’m not in the club. So if all seven must be followed to qulify, that “people of all nations” boils down to “members of the Abrahamic religions”. And given that 1&5 purposely exclude anyone not in that group, those are definitely proselytizing.

    Especially when Genesis 3:22 is considered; “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”

    Remnants of the polytheistic religion Judaism evolved from. Same goes for the different versions of the same stories. Elsewhere God has no problem using “I”.

  16. Reading Neo’s 2020 post, it appears that most all of the commenters take the stance that truth is to varying degrees relative. At one point, a comment is made that no one is defending absolute truth.

    So in regard to absolute truth, I’ll quote Martin Luther, “Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”

    Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” would give Hamas a pass.

  17. Bill K: “it’s good to periodically return to the basics.
    People have said that politics is downstream of culture.
    It seems to me that culture is downstream of worldview and that worldview is downstream of religion.”
    While you don’t have to be religious to be moral, I will conflate them here for the moment. When you don’t believe in divine influence or revelation you seek other causes/ sources for our inherent “morality”, where we somehow “generally know” right from wrong.

    For me, it is likely our morality comes from a set of evolved instincts (parental love, love of mate, love of children, love of self= self preservation; disgust at shit, incest, etc.) and a set of cultural elements that we may not even realize are the real source of our beliefs (in our case mostly Western vs. non Western ideas and preferences).
    From this view, morality is both upstream and downstream of culture. It contains elements that are basically absolute and elements that are clearly relative.

    Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them to unto you. Sounds very reasonable and “universal”. But our view is that it applies to all people, regardless of their culture or other beliefs. But other cultures (such as Islamic ones) really restrict it to other members of their culture, or local in-group.
    That Golden Rule is one I can endorse and try to live by, as imperfectly as I do.
    But an alternative is “Love they neighbor as thyself”. I like my neighbors but I don’t love them, so that one is tougher to live by. In some ways perhaps even foolish.

    But I am glad I do live in a society and civilization derived from Judeo-Christian influences, moderated by Greco-Roman elements, leading to the Enlightenment (all 3 or 4 versions I suppose, at least in part) and our founders’ ideas about life, liberty, property, prosperity, pursuit of happiness (= virtue and wisdom?), etc. If I had been reared in a different society/culture, I might still prefer to move to this one, but I can’t say that for sure.

    YMMV, as I am sure it does for a major fraction of those reading here. So in the spirit of the season, Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards Men. But don’t be absurd or unrealistic about it, to the point you run counter to your instincts without a good reason to do so. 10/7/23 shows what may happen if you do.

  18. Ammo Grrrll boils social morality down to the basics.
    I endorse her message.

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/12/thoughts-from-the-ammo-line-506.php
    “In the spirit of the season Ammo Grrrll reflects on VALUES AND HOW WE GET THEM.”

    As a mother, I laid down just 3 rules for our kids (when they weren’t quite old enough to understand some of the Big Ten):
    1. If it’s not yours, leave it alone.
    2. If you mess it up, you clean it up.
    3. Keep your hands to yourself.

    We did have to add an equivalent of Noah’s #7 in case somebody forgot 1-3.

    Here’s a nice site comparing the two Biblical versions of The Ten Commandments, with some commentary and printable posters.

  20. Oligonicella:

    That is not what the word “proselytizing” means. It means to actively go out and try to convert people.

    As far as the use of the plural in Genesis goes, it isn’t about polytheism. See this.

  21. proselytizing (Oxford):
    the action of attempting to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another:

    There’s no prerequisite for the action to be a physical engagement. Those rules were formulated then published that they be “given to all humankind” in order to tell all people how to go about getting in on sharing the world to come. As some members of humankind are not members of the group, why include the god stuff other than to convince them about the list composer’s religion (revere God)?

    Looking in, angels are remnants of pantheon as well. They’re certainly not mortal, especially in the OT descriptions. The number of names given God in the OT supports it’s derivation from pantheon also. We know for certain the Abrahamic stock had a pantheon and there’s no reason to assume it’s influence disappeared entirely.

    I don’t have an emotional care about it, I’m just describing how it looks to a nonbeliever who has an interest in the development of languages, cultures and religions

    The list would have worked perfectly well without 1 & 5 and the remaining five are all in the code of Hammurabi (although #6 is dicey).

  22. Bill K:
    Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” would give Hamas a pass.

    You’d have to remove all context but as a flat, spoken-in-a-vacuum question, yeah.

    Though I’m pretty sure the Romans were rather harsh on murderers and had a predilection for crucifying rebels as examples.

  23. R2L
    Good points.
    In current English, “love” is pumped-up “like”. But that’s not how it’s meant.
    I owe my neighbors a duty…help of one kind or another…and, fortunately, they’re also likable. But if the latter were not true, the former still would be.
    No reason to feel inadequate if you aren’t interested in socializing with somebody even though you would help get the tree off the driveway.

    From time to time, there are studies of babies who are shown interactions between puppets. There are what we might consider “fair” and “unfair”. Green puppet takes blue puppet’s toy. Or hands it to him. Variations. Turns out babies just old enough to sit up can judge the situation and favor, afterwards, the puppet who acted in what is considered a “fair” manner. Presumably, they had not been exposed to their culture to an extent contaminating the results.
    Amazing and a substantial pile of data fo those seeking for origins of morality.

    We don’t need to know the neighbors whom we help. See blood donations.

    And John Ezra Dahlquist helped quite a lot of people he’d never met. Twenty quatloos to those getting the reference. (As had the guys who were with him in the bomb room.)

  24. Oligonicella, to drop the other shoe on context,
    “Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this purpose I have been born, and for this I have come into the world: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice.” Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?”

    Merry Christmas!

  25. Pilate was a harried bureaucrat, that didn’t want trouble in this backwater, if he could help it, I guess you could compare him with Evelyn Barker the last commander of British Forces, during the Mandate, he had been brutal to the Palmach rebels, he didn’t want to dirty himself with the decisions, so he handed it to the Jews, he didn’t think Jesus merited execution, but he wasn’t going to stick his neck out,

    Put it another way, he served his purpose like the arrogant Sadduccees and Pharisees in Fulfilling the Covenant, that had been put in place a Millenia before,

  26. So miguel, you’re saying that harried bureaucrats have an aversion for sticking their necks out with the truth? 😉

  28. In the New Testament you see examples of God fearing gentiles that were familiar with Judaism , and maybe at some level practicing, who were then brought the rest of the way into Christianity. An example would be that of the Roman Centurion Cornelius, of whom was said ” a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always.” Acts 10:2. KJV. Peter ends up getting sent to preach to him and his family and friends and they received the Holy Spirit and were baptized. See the entire chapter of Acts chapter 10.

  29. The Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 49: 1-7 , speaking of the coming Messiah, says that “…It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. ” Verse 6 KJV

  30. Earlier Isaiah chapter 42 also says of the Messiah that he will be a “…for a light of the Gentiles…” Verse 6 KJV

  31. One interpretation of “us” is God discussing the issue with angels.
    (One’s mileage, of course, may vary…)

  32. “The study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.” Allan Bloom

    Yes, but can a society continue to exist if it’s convinced that it’s not right or that there is no right and no truth? It’s a little confusing that Bloom appears to be taking a stand against “openness” in the passages cited, while “the closing of the American mind” in his title would probably be taken by most readers as describing a bad thing.

    I suppose there was a tension in Bloom’s thinking: he wanted his students to question and doubt, but wanted them to start at some kind of belief. If they doubt from the beginning to the end that truth can be found, the process of education doesn’t work.

    The history professor Bloom criticized probably believed that there was some progressive undercurrent in history, so that Washington in promoting the values of the Virginia squirearchy against the British crown and aristocracy was participating in a movement towards greater liberty and democracy that went beyond his mere class interests. Something similar would apply to Cromwell earlier and Lincoln later.

    It’s a very comforting belief for historians looking at the long history of a successful civilization. In the actual moment, it’s hard to tell whether a new movement or rebellion will bring progress or catastrophe. It’s also not always easy to decide if a movement led (as movements are) by an elite really does benefit “the people.” Which people are “the people” is another question, as is which of the ever-present forms of social subordination really qualify as “oppression.”

    Bloom’s quote put me in mind of Kloppenberg and Obama. James Kloppenberg professed to find a philosophy in Barack Obama’s speeches and books — a pragmatic philosophy that was never too sure that it was right. Others looking at Obama have concluded that he was very certain that he was right, and determined to “correct the mistakes” so that society would be as “right” as he was about everything. In their view, he was rather too convinced that the “arc of history” was bending his way.

  34. allan bloom had witnessed the proto antifa, as did Rossiter he saw the roots in the Frankfurt school notably Marcuse as well as Adorno he saw German kultur permeating the zeitgeist even in the seemingly innocuous theatre of ‘Mack the Knife,

    it was the Closing to Reasoning to free Enquiry, (he wrote it around the time that Jesse Jackson was haranging then stanford university, where Professor Gay would begin her academic career ‘hey hey ho ho Western Culture’s got to go’
    nearly 40 years later one could say his task is complete,

  36. [The anthropologist] Kluckhohn spent a goodly portion of his career attempting to derive these universal moral rules,

    I know an interesting story about Clyde Kluckhom which coincidentally involves universal moral rules, but then I recalled Tom Lehrer’s My Home Town.

    That fellow was not fool
    Who taught our Sunday school
    And neither was our kindly Parson Brown
    I guess I better leave this one out
    Just to be on the safe side
    In my home town

    Suffice it to say that in addition, it anticipates some of the present day WOKE controversy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑