Objective Morality vs. Subjective Morality
Preventative Law vs. Reactionary Law
First, a rant:It never ceases to amaze me when religious people claim that morals come from God. "How do you know right from wrong if you don't believe in God?" they ask. "What stops you from robbing and murdering people?". I always want to ask in return: "Do you refrain from robbing and murdering innocent people only because God forbids it? If God approved of it, would you do it? God approves of slavery in the Bible (Ephesians 6:5). Do you approve of slavery? God approves of rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Do you approve of rape? No? Why not? Are you saying you disagree with God on the morality of slavery and rape?"
What is morality?
I agree with Google's definition:
morality (noun) 1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Where do morals come from?I don't really know, but my guess is that morals come from a combination of reason and sympathy.
Almost everyone on the planet dislikes being the victim of theft, robbery, assault, injury, rape, confinement, humiliation, and deceit. If we do those things to someone, we'll hurt them somehow. The understanding that our actions can cause people to suffer combined with our emotion of sympathy gives us the basis of morality. It's what makes the idea of hurting someone repulsive. Those who have no conscience, such as sociopaths and psychopaths, are immoral to their cores because they are missing a critical component of morality: the ability to feel compassion and guilt.
Why do people do immoral things?
The short answer is apathy. They don't care if they cause others discomfort, pain, or loss.
The main reason people do immoral things is because the immoral act quickly and efficiently satisfies their needs. It's a lot more efficient to steal other people's stuff than to spend time and energy working for it yourself. It's more efficient to drive off than to call the police and ambulance after you've accidentally hit a pedestrian. And if you want to cheat on your spouse, it's easier to give in to temptation than to go through a lengthy, stressful, costly divorce before pursuing other romantic interests.
Objective Morality vs. Subjective MoralityDespite the near-universality of basic morals, they remain nothing more than a collection of preferences, opinions, and ideas that tell us how we should behave. We believe it's wrong to murder and steal because we wouldn't like it if those things were done to us. We believe it's okay to shake someone's hand when we first meet them because we don't have a problem when someone does it to us. But what if someone takes great offense at any attempt at physical contact? Or what if someone doesn't mind if you steal from them? Or punch them in the face? Such people do exist; they don't mind being humiliated, violated, and physically abused. In their opinion, it is not immoral to do those things. Therefore objective morals not only do not, but cannot exist. The idea of objective morality is no different than an objectively "best" religion or personal philosophy.
Evolution of MoralityFor thousands of years, prehistoric humans that perpetrated violence or theft were either driven out of the tribe or killed. The ones who remained were less inclined towards violence and other anti-social behavior. Eventually, after many generations of this selective breeding, the people who remained in the tribe were more suited to living in harmony with their neighbors. It's a classic case of survival of the fittest, only in this case "fittest" refers not to physical fitness but to how well an individual fits into society. The same can be done with dogs or cats to breed out the aggressive ones.
A society where violent crimes are socially permitted will tear itself apart very quickly, which explains why there are no such societies anywhere in the world. If any have existed, they've self-destructed. But chances are, indiscriminately violent people would've never coalesced into a society in the first place. The societies that survive are ones where public opinion says it's wrong to hurt others without a good reason. This is why murder, assault, theft, and robbery are illegal in every long-lived society on the planet. As our understanding of morality became more complex and the number of people in our tribes increased, we started writing our morals down and prescribing punishments for their violations. These became laws. Eventually people invented the idea of rights to describe what people may and may not legally do.
What are rights?Rights are a set of privileges granted to people by the authorities. A right is a promise by authorities to not harm you in any way if you do what the right gives you permission to do. For example, in China, you have the right to criticize a dish at a restaurant but you don't have the right to criticize the government. In the US, you have the right to criticize the government but you don't have the right to kill gays or Jews. In Taliban-controlled regions of Afghanistan, you have the right to kill gays and Jews but you don't have the right to criticize Islam. Rights vary from place to place because they are man-made and granted by whoever is in charge.
People often speak of rights-violations by oppressive regimes, but technically there's no such thing. If I'm in Afghanistan and the Taliban executes me for not praying, they will not be violating my rights. If I am imprisoned and beaten in North Korea for not bowing to a statue of Kim Jong Il, North Korean authorities will not be violating my rights. And when the Nazis robbed, tortured, and killed Jews by the millions, they did not violate the rights of a single Jew. How can this be? Because under the Taliban's rule, I have no right to freedom of religion. Under North Korean rule, I have no right to walk past a statue of Kim Jong Il without bowing to it. And under Nazi rule, Jews had no rights at all. How can non-existent rights be violated? They can't. Therefore, governments and dictators generally never violate anyone's rights.
Where do rights come from?In the United States Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers spoke of "unalienable rights" that are given to us by our "Creator". One sentence later, they contradict themselves. They say "to secure these rights, Governments are..." Wait a minute, why would unalienable rights need securing? They're unalienable! That means they cannot be taken away. If something cannot be taken away... why does it need to be secured? Clearly, the Founding Fathers meant rights should not be taken away. All rights are alienable. Throughout history plenty of people have had their rights taken away for no good reason.
The Founding Fathers also said those unalienable rights come from our Creator. Obviously I don't believe in a Creator so I don't believe in Creator-given rights. As far as natural rights go... there's no such thing. How can rights be natural when humans invented the very idea of "rights"? It's like saying chess or prison are natural.
Rights are completely artificial because first and foremost, rights are ideas created by the human mind and anything that is a deliberate product of the human mind is, by definition, artificial. If there are no natural human rights, that leaves only legal rights. Therefore, all rights are legal rights, and legal rights come from political authorities. In short, rights are granted to us by whoever happens to be in charge, be it a king, a dictator, a government, or an armed militia of religious militants.
Preventative Law vs. Reactionary LawA good law is not one that describes how the guilty are to be treated and how the victims are to be compensated. A good law is one that prevents people from becoming victims in the first place. This is why I'm a strong advocate of preventative law. Rather than solving a problem quickly and efficiently, it's better to not have the problem at all.
Consider the following cases: A father allows his 2-year-old son to play with a loaded handgun. A drunk man drives 90 MPH at night on wet roads in heavy fog. A psychotic sniper decides to have some "harmless" fun by shooting imaginary targets a foot above the heads of children on a playground. Should any of those people be punished? If you're an advocate of reactionary law then you cannot say for sure. You have to ask "Are there any victims?" If not, then those are all victimless crimes because no one was hurt and no one intended to hurt anyone. So if we go by reactionary law, no crimes have been committed and no one should be punished. I disagree. I think we should punish irresponsible behavior that needlessly endangers people's lives.
{go back to Controversial Topics}