Claiming the moral highground

RCOFIELD: You asked: And what might those "first principles" be? From whence do they spring?

An excellent question.

PERSIFLAGE: Your response was excellent and in my opinion right on target. Too long to quote here.
Maybe I could add to the discussion by pointing out that one set of people believes morality and moral principles were implanted in human nature perhaps as an evolutionary boost by a god who creates, designs and still acts on nature and human nature. By contrast, there is a set of people (I am one) who think human morality can be fully explained by natural (not god directed) evolution. Neither group of people is likely to change the beliefs of people in the other group.

But all should recognize that our actual knowledge about such things is limited and absolute proofs are hard to come by. While I do not believe in a divine designer or in divine intervention in the evolutionary processes, I cannot prove (nor can anyone else) that such intervention did not take place.

Two key words in the argument from people like me: reciprocity and empathy. Foundational to morality and foundational in the commands, "Do unto others as you would they do to you," and "Love your neighbor as yourself".

In the words of Robert Wright, "We have a moral sense and a conscionce", and thank goodness for that.

Now if everybody would just think like I think......

It seems fairly likely that 'moral' behavior has been with humans from the first, perhaps embedded in our very DNA.

In any event, conduct and behavior have most certainly been under societal/tribal control since before the early religions of shamanism and totemism.

Latter day religions do not abide in a cultural vacuum, and can by no means lay claim to the founding of morals and ethics, or even the possession of a superior set of moral guidelines - although they often seem to do just that.

Religions, like all human phenomena, are created by humans and share plenty of cultural/tribal DNA with every other institutional aspect of human culture - and with every other religion under the sun.

From the links below:

'The evolution of morality refers to the emergence of human moral behavior over the course of human evolution. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct.

In everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behavior and not much thought is given to the social conducts of other creatures. The emerging fields of evolutionary biology and in particular sociobiology have demonstrated that, though human social behaviors are complex, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals.

Sociobiological explanations of human behavior are still controversial. The traditional view of social scientists has been that morality is a construct, and is thus culturally relative, although others argue that there is a science of morality.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

CLERKENWELLMAN

.....the atheist understands morality from first principles.....

And what might those "first principles" be? From whence do they spring?

Regardless of what human right records of United States for past 50 years, is no concern to me - but let world history be the judge for generations to come, and subsequently people will judge US in light of the world to become in the very distant future, whether it had been the force for good or moral decay.

And let anyone of whatever politcal persuasion or moral fiber on this world today, CONDEMN CHINA for all human right gross violations of past and from now on - there is no execuse to glorify whatever Communist party achievement - it still falls short of common human decency in world's opinion, there is no hiding for communist failure to guarantee basic human dignity; - whatever you may want to trump nationalism. China has lost of its soul of past glory when ancient Chinese rulers glorified in their own twin pillars of virtures in ages long gone, which are Benvalence toward all and Magnanimity toward commoner; chinese does NOT have anything to be proud of and deserved to be condemned for human rights by its own histroy and decent people everywhere.

Human rights should start in our own back yard. A man without a job with a living wage is denied his human rights. Why do Americans and Canadians feel they have the right to tell other people how to live? Basic human rights, equality, are denied all over N. America.

Right, the U.S. criticizing China for violating human rights is like a pot calling the kettle black. Forget the genocides, the forceful relocations and other mistreatments of the Native Americans, as well as the slavery, racial segregation and discriminations against the blacks. The U.S. is currently supporting the despotic regimes of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq that brutally oppress and persecute their own citizens who oppose and demonstrate against the continual injustices and corruptions committed by these regimes - all in the name of instilling democracy and stability in the Middle East (read: American interests). Right, In God We Trust. Or, is that, In Us God Trusts?

....... :-) ........ :-) ........On what "ground" does an atheist claim the "moral high-ground?

Answer: Because the atheist understands morality from first principles, not from paroting the received bias of a priest or an imam or the ponitification of Paul. The secularist atheist will defend personal religious freedom - with the caveat that this should apply to all religions, not merely different flavours of christianity. And yes, the atheist will probably subscribe to a model of universal human rights - one which is not necessarily available in the Bible or the Koran, for example. But such subscription might allow for the evolution of cultures towards ones which really have those values. So we observe that the USA's record on particular human rights issues is not glowing any more than China's is, but at least some leaders in the US are aiming to improve the situation. The religious, however, are often observed denying the rights of women, gays, people of other religions and none. So if you are religious, please line up to examine what your leaders tell you about these issues and ask how their view gives them power by denying the rights of others. Then come back and argue that they sit on the high ground, rather than the mire.

Claiming the moral highground

....... :-) ........ :-) ........On what "ground" does an atheist claim the "moral high-ground?

the USA and morality after Bush/Cheney. LOL! Perhaps we can teach the Chinese how to humanely waterboard their detainees...

Morality? It has no CA$H value.

We supported the Shah because of the Cold War and our enemy was a monster as demonstrated by the body counts. Iran was an important electronic spy post near the Soviet atomic and missile testing zone for the Soviets.

The Shah had plenty of faults but he was moving his country ahead, socially and materially. Does anyone think replacing his regime has improved life for Iranians, especially those who are female? Do most people know that the spark that really set off the revolution was a requirement for the imams to pass a test to receive their state stipend?

Furthermore, I hope all that sit in judgement of what we do to acquire petroleum do not purchase any.

I'm not even sure where to get started. Our country was built on the destruction of the native Americans and their way of life and our human rights abuses abroad have been nothing short of appalling since then. We have propped up so many vile dictators in Latin America that I've lost count. As long as the sugar, and coffee keep flowing to the imperialist breakfast table, we're happy. And oil... Suffice to say that we certainly cannot take the moral high road with any country with regards to human rights.

For obvious reasons I want not to deal with the foreign policies of China and the USA and do not to talk about what China is doing in Africa or what USA is doing in Middle East. I want to pick on the domestic policies and domestic human rights of China and the USA which leads to domestic prisoners in China and the USA. I have first hand experience from a country in Middle East where prisoners (and even their members of family) have no basic human rights whatsoever. I have Chinese colleagues and friends admitting that the domestic prisoners’ situation is not any better in China. So, let us ask ourselves “What percent of Chinese vs what percent of Americans are in prison because they criticized their government?” The harsh treatment of Chinese prisoners in no way is comparable with the facilities available to American prisoners. Of course, this in no way is to ignore or underestimate our problems here in the USA. But, comparing Chinese prisoners to USA prisoners is like comparing Apples and Oranges. We can compare USA to other democratic countries such as Australia, Canada, and France. I don’t count England in yet because I lived there long enough to know that with the imposition of Royal Family, they are far from being one.

Given the umbrella heading over this essay, I think it fair to note how we arrive at our standards for what constitutes the "moral high ground", to wit, certainly NOT the Bible. Sam Harris said it best: "As a source of objective morality, the Bible is one of the worst books we have. It might have been the VERY worst, in fact -- if we didn't also happen to have the Koran."

I'm sure, since I know him, that Prof. Silverman knows he was omitting many incidents that led to resentments among Iranians that finally erupted in revolution. (I lived in Iran 1967-77.) The British, in 1941, forcibly and removed the last Shah's father, Reza Shah, to Mauritius, then S. Africa, for his pro-German sympathies. The Allies could not tolerate German access, through s. Europe and German-sympathetic Turkey, to Middle East oil and the Persian Gulf. In 1952 progressive Iranians--always ahead of Arabs and other Mid-Easterners--democatically elected a prime minister, Mr. Mossadegh, who nationalized Iranian oil--the first time any leader in the Mid-East had such chutzpah. In '53 the last Shah was ousted and fled to Rome. It took the CIA's chief, Alan Dulles, only 3 weeks to travel to Iran with a suitcase containing $2m in cash with which he bought off all antimonarchical interests and returned the Shah to power. Thus ended NATIVE Mid-East's first attempt at democracy. This event has never been forgotten by Iranians, who have been wary of the US in the best of times. Unfortunately, as Herb indicates, the US (and Israel (whose Mossad trained Iran's repressive internal security forces, the infamous SAVAK) thought it much more important to keep the Shah and his corrupt family in power, representing the US in the Islamic countries, and the Shah became increasingly confident and repressive (even while Iranians became steadily more world-wise and educated). Alas, the US failed to detect serious signs of unrest in Iran (as "we" did in Iraq) and to mediate them, in spite of people--such as I--who warned our government about what was really happening there 1976-77. The result is an odious theocracy that has its citizens more terrorized than the Shah did. All because of petroleum and America's historic willingness to put greed above human rights. As we're doing by kowtowing so readily to China.

As long as the United States is dependent on oil, we will deal with the oil rich countries in whatever way benefits us. I hate to be cynical, but history has proven that economics trumps human rights. What a travesty.

Well said, Professor Silverman. If this nation can ever cease to compromise its principles for the sake of economic gain, then maybe we will gain enough credibility and respect from other nations which will enable us to resolve international problems without the need to threaten military action.