Morality...

[Lycorth]

I really don't know, honestly. But the first thing I thought of when reading this was that the Nazi doctors were using the heads, not their hearts. I think it is wise to use one's head, heart, mind, experience, gut, and any other resources available when making any decision, not just decisions about morality.

 

How do you know the Nazi doctors weren't using their hearts also? In other words, you posit they were only motivated by intellectual gain when they performed their experiments, and were otherwise wholly dispassionate about it.

 

Unless you can prove this, I strongly advise you to avoid making statements like this. It's easy to pull out the Nazi card and use it to argue against rationalism and/or Atheism, but hard to backup. Coming from a former Nazi, I can tell you that lack of passion is generally not a National Socialist characteristic.

 

Furthermore, all morality derives ultimately from reason. Our "hearts" are in it, too, but only as a source of motivation. I can deduce that murder is wrong because it is clear to me that taking the life of a person who has done no ill to me or to anyone else (ie, an "innocent") is unjustified, ie, wrong. I have no justification in taking the life of a person who has done no harm to me or others nor is trying to do so.

 

That, and you can be sure that Charlemagne, or the Spanish Inquisitors, or perhaps the officiators of the Salem Witch Trials were using both their heads and their hearts. Doesn't justify what they did, eh?

[Clergicide]

 

I really don't know, honestly. But the first thing I thought of when reading this was that the Nazi doctors were using the heads, not their hearts. I think it is wise to use one's head, heart, mind, experience, gut, and any other resources available when making any decision, not just decisions about morality.

 

-CC in MA

 

Those Nazi doctors created an anatomy textbook that:

 

"A 1990 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine described it as a classic in the field. It is a very well-known book for surgeons. It has some of the best work of medical illustration. Even in Israel you will find these books," Anatomy Text Draws Criticism -NIH Record

 

Does this justify it? The article at least shows that the issue is far more complex than simply if they were using their head or their heart.

[currentchristian]

How do you know the Nazi doctors weren't using their hearts also? In other words, you posit they were only motivated by intellectual gain when they performed their experiments, and were otherwise wholly dispassionate about it.

 

Unless you can prove this, I strongly advise you to avoid making statements like this. It's easy to pull out the Nazi card and use it to argue against rationalism and/or Atheism, but hard to backup. Coming from a former Nazi, I can tell you that lack of passion is generally not a National Socialist characteristic.

 

Furthermore, all morality derives ultimately from reason. Our "hearts" are in it, too, but only as a source of motivation. I can deduce that murder is wrong because it is clear to me that taking the life of a person who has done no ill to me or to anyone else (ie, an "innocent") is unjustified, ie, wrong. I have no justification in taking the life of a person who has done no harm to me or others nor is trying to do so.

 

That, and you can be sure that Charlemagne, or the Spanish Inquisitors, or perhaps the officiators of the Salem Witch Trials were using both their heads and their hearts. Doesn't justify what they did, eh?

 

You make a very good point and I accept it as true. I guess I was thinking that anyone using their heart could not conduct Nazi experiments. But you are exactly right. One can use one's heart and do anything. I agree with you completely now that you point that out. And I'm reminded of something the alleged Jesus allegedly said, "For out of the heart proceed murders..."

 

Maybe in fact, the head is more trustworthy than the heart, full of emotion as it is. I think one of the prophets said something like "the human heart can be desperately wicked above all things." I know scripture has no authority in your life, but for me it does and it verifies precisely what you were trying to teach me.

 

Thank you for challenging me on a point that I now see was terribly faulty. I appreciate being set straight on that point.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

Does this justify it? The article at least shows that the issue is far more complex than simply if they were using their head or their heart.

 

I concede this point, Clergicide. My viewpoint as expressed a few posts ago was absolutely incorrect. As with everything in this life, there's a lot more gray than black and white. Thank you for reminding me.

 

-CC in MA

[dibby]

What do we mean when we say "heart"?

[currentchristian]

What do we mean when we say "heart"?

 

That's a powerful question. I'll anxiously await an answer.

 

-CC in MA

[Clergicide]

What do we mean when we say "heart"?

 

Generally it's taken as 'that gut feeling', or 'inner voice', or 'deep feeling' etc etc. that seems to be an inner suggestion beyond rational thinking. With examples like murder, the existance of this separate, intuitive voice seems very concrete. However, when reapplied elsewhere, we tend to find that this voice actually is mollified by rational thinking. I'm at a loss at the moment to make a specific example, but I'm sure at one time or another we've all experience something along the following lines.

 

Knowing 'in our core', or 'feeling in our bones' (or however you phrase it) that one position on a topic was correct and right, but later when presented with new information or another way of looking at the topic, that feeling was gone and your position had changed. New information, and new experience 'physically' changes the structure of the brain, and this is likely what has happened. On an issue like murder, there is little information or expencience you can aquire that will alter the fundamental notion that murder in itself is wrong, which is why it and examples like it remain so concrete over time.

[NotBlinded]

On an issue like murder, there is little information or expencience you can aquire that will alter the fundamental notion that murder in itself is wrong, which is why it and examples like it remain so concrete over time.

I would agree with the exception of being able to de-humanize the person one is killing. When we view the other person as being below the standard of what it means to be human, one is able to kill and feel that it is the right thing to do because of the horrific manner in which that person lives their life (as understood subjectively). We don't usually look deep enough in ourselves to realize that the person that we are de-humanizing may have very good reasons for being the way they are. If we can understand those reasons, then we might be able to forgive the person. This, of course, goes back to what you said about having new information, but maybe not so much new information as an understanding that that information is there whether we know it or not. Oh heck...I don't know.

[Lycorth]

And I'm reminded of something the alleged Jesus allegedly said, "For out of the heart proceed murders..."

 

Atta boy

 

Maybe in fact, the head is more trustworthy than the heart, full of emotion as it is. I think one of the prophets said something like "the human heart can be desperately wicked above all things." I know scripture has no authority in your life, but for me it does and it verifies precisely what you were trying to teach me.

 

Rationality, not emotionalism, is key to human survival. There is a place for our emotions, of course, just not as substitutes for logic and critical thinking. The heart cannot do the work of the mind - and it is the mind's job to determine truth, even if it is truth relative only to the individual.

 

You despise the Hell doctrine, and rightly so. Consider that the Hell doctrine is nothing without emotions for it to play upon. Faced with critical thinking, the Hell doctrine vanishes into nothingness.

[Clergicide]

On an issue like murder, there is little information or expencience you can aquire that will alter the fundamental notion that murder in itself is wrong, which is why it and examples like it remain so concrete over time.

I would agree with the exception of being able to de-humanize the person one is killing. When we view the other person as being below the standard of what it means to be human, one is able to kill and feel that it is the right thing to do because of the horrific manner in which that person lives their life. Oh heck...I don't know.

 

That's the perfect example. It relates to the Nazi part of the discussion, and it's an example of tampering with that internal voice through information and experience. You knocked it out of the park.

[currentchristian]

And I'm reminded of something the alleged Jesus allegedly said, "For out of the heart proceed murders..."

 

Atta boy

 

Maybe in fact, the head is more trustworthy than the heart, full of emotion as it is. I think one of the prophets said something like "the human heart can be desperately wicked above all things." I know scripture has no authority in your life, but for me it does and it verifies precisely what you were trying to teach me.

 

Rationality, not emotionalism, is key to human survival. There is a place for our emotions, of course, just not as substitutes for logic and critical thinking. The heart cannot do the work of the mind - and it is the mind's job to determine truth, even if it is truth relative only to the individual.

 

You despise the Hell doctrine, and rightly so. Consider that the Hell doctrine is nothing without emotions for it to play upon. Faced with critical thinking, the Hell doctrine vanishes into nothingness.

 

I trust the "atta boy" was in response to my conceding my error and embracing your point as much more worthy, not due to the use of "alleged" prior to You-Know-Who's name? I didn't want to use the "Jesus stick," so felt it good to insert "alleged" prior to the name and prior to the quote. There is no alleged in my heart or, better yet, my mind.

 

Now, what about the "former Nazi" reference. I'd be interested in learning more about that!?

 

-CC in MA

[chefranden]

In the United States, we do have our social compacts, binding contracts: The Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and subsequent Amendments and congressional laws. By virtue of our citizenship, we agree to these covenants with each other. Those who violate our covenant are arrested, tried, and if convincted incarcerated. With about 3,000,000 Americans involved in the criminal justice system, it seems evident to me that we need to do a much better job of teaching the tenants of our social compacts and their necessity for social order and stability.

-CC in MA

 

A good start in decreasing crime and anti-social behavior would be cut down on belief. Why? Because contrary to religionist expectations, religion does not correlate to moral moral behavior but to less moral behavior. Those countries with less religion have less crime especially violent crime, less STDs, less teen pregnancy and even less abortion to mention a few benefits.

 

See the Study on whether or not more religion correlates to less immorality by Jesuit Gary S Paul.

[Mongo]

What do we mean when we say "heart"?

 

That's a powerful question. I'll anxiously await an answer.

 

-CC in MA

 

CC,

 

I agree with Asimov but that is because I see mind and heart as different centers of the brain which only has the capacity to think but at different rates.

 

My understanding of the mind-heart interaction comes from a very excellent book called The Gift of Fear by Gavin DeBecker. He explains much better than I will, how some thoughts are considered and others are more or less instantaneous thoughts (but thoughts none the less). It is a different kind of thinking.

 

Essentially, if I remember correctly, the affairs of the heart, AKA gut reactions, are based on important/critical experiences we have had that have been driven deep into our sub-conscious. These are kind of like pre-recorded tapes that we have written deeper into the area of our mind we would call the heart.

 

For example, they are created when we are yelled at as a child for no reason and then encounter similar incidents that reinforce a tape that says, "When daddy's voice gets louder, stop talking". From then on, even as an adult, when someone's voice gets louder, you talk less or shut up.

 

From this approach, the behaviour of the Nazi may well be one of having very bad tapes written into their subconscious through rigorous training to desensitize the young Nazi to things like torture and hatred of Jews.

 

This kind of tape writing happens in church as the preacher and every one else carrying the mental virus reinforces every week that Atheists are immoral, they eat babies and have no moral conscience to hold them back. Of course, those who allow those tapes to drill or bury themselves deep into their minds will then do really stupid things like tell their christian kid not to play with the Atheist kid, for fear that the daddy might run around the house naked and who knows maybe the mommy too. And we know how evil nudity is don't we????!!!

 

So CC is right. Using your heart is one of several components to making an **important** decision.

 

The difference between Nazis and other bad people is the kinds of tapes they have written into their sub-conscious.

 

That is not a perfect description but I am pretty sure it puts us closer to the full answer.

 

Mongo

 

Rationality, not emotionalism, is key to human survival.

 

I think there are lots of rational reasons to disagree with that.

 

Without fear we would self-destruct in short order.

 

Without passion we would not strive.

 

Without rational thought, we would still be monkeys but at least we would have fear and passion.

 

Rational thought is the key to the survival of civilization not humans.

 

Mongo

[Asimov]

I really don't know, honestly. But the first thing I thought of when reading this was that the Nazi doctors were using the heads, not their hearts. I think it is wise to use one's head, heart, mind, experience, gut, and any other resources available when making any decision, not just decisions about morality.

 

-CC in MA

 

In what way were the "nazi doctors" using rationality when coming to a conclusion in doing what they did?

 

In the ways of "right and wrong", logic is the method one should use to figure that out. Basing right and wrong on feelings and faith is arbitrary.

 

 

Without fear we would self-destruct in short order.

 

Without passion we would not strive.

 

Of course, and I don't think Varokhar is discounting the value of emotions, but we are talking about reasoning out why things are right or wrong and whether or not they are right or wrong.

[Lycorth]

Of course, and I don't think Varokhar is discounting the value of emotions, but we are talking about reasoning out why things are right or wrong and whether or not they are right or wrong.

 

Pretty much so; perhaps I should've said that rationality is more important than emotionalism, as individual emotions do figure into it, as Mongo correctly noted. Yet, reason holds a more important place, I believe, since using feelings to determine right or wrong is, like Asimov said, arbitrary.

 

In the end, morals and ethics need a rational base.

[Guest ConservativePessimist]

Hmm... so any ill reasoning could not help us go towards morals, correct?

 

 

I DO NOT have a handle on the ultimate truth (and a little secret: neither does anyone else). Recognizing this makes it a lot harder to be smug about moral superiority. And anyone who uses a self professed moral superiority to behave badly is NOT morally superior: the bad behavior and justification are not moral at all.

 

haha, I just had to repost this to make sure clergicide reads it. Well put shackednomore.

[currentchristian]

CC,

 

I agree with Asimov but that is because I see mind and heart as different centers of the brain which only has the capacity to think but at different rates.

 

My understanding of the mind-heart interaction comes from a very excellent book called The Gift of Fear by Gavin DeBecker. He explains much better than I will, how some thoughts are considered and others are more or less instantaneous thoughts (but thoughts none the less). It is a different kind of thinking.

 

Essentially, if I remember correctly, the affairs of the heart, AKA gut reactions, are based on important/critical experiences we have had that have been driven deep into our sub-conscious. These are kind of like pre-recorded tapes that we have written deeper into the area of our mind we would call the heart.

 

For example, they are created when we are yelled at as a child for no reason and then encounter similar incidents that reinforce a tape that says, "When daddy's voice gets louder, stop talking". From then on, even as an adult, when someone's voice gets louder, you talk less or shut up.

 

From this approach, the behaviour of the Nazi may well be one of having very bad tapes written into their subconscious through rigorous training to desensitize the young Nazi to things like torture and hatred of Jews.

 

This kind of tape writing happens in church as the preacher and every one else carrying the mental virus reinforces every week that Atheists are immoral, they eat babies and have no moral conscience to hold them back. Of course, those who allow those tapes to drill or bury themselves deep into their minds will then do really stupid things like tell their christian kid not to play with the Atheist kid, for fear that the daddy might run around the house naked and who knows maybe the mommy too. And we know how evil nudity is don't we????!!!

 

So CC is right. Using your heart is one of several components to making an **important** decision.

 

The difference between Nazis and other bad people is the kinds of tapes they have written into their sub-conscious.

 

That is not a perfect description but I am pretty sure it puts us closer to the full answer.

 

Mongo

 

Thanks, Mongo, for two things: 1) Adding another book to my already "cup runneth over" amazon.com "to buy" list! I notice that De Becker has a sequel, Protecting the Gift. (Does anyone happen to have that book because in looking at the index there are two references I'd like to have and I don't know when/if I'll ever get around to buying the sequel. If you have it, please let me know and I'll give you the two page numbers. Gracias.); and 2) providing a succinct way to think about the "mind" and the "heart" as "different centers of the brain." Easy to "get."

 

There's a thread on homophobia in this strand. Your point about head/heart leads me to this conclusion: Homophobia is (primarily) of the heart, not the head. Likewise, racism (primarily) is of the heart, not the head. Homophobia and racism are "instinctual," having their origin in that subconscious tape recording about who and what gay people or people of color are and what they can do to harm others. Is this a fair conclusion from your premises? (I'm going to provide a link at the homophobia thread to a fascinating 1961 instructional video for boys about the dangers of -- not predators, which I have no trouble warning boys or girls about -- but homosexuals. Talk about a tape being entrenched in the heart!)

 

And so the Jesus' teaching that it is in the "heart" that one finds the origin of envy, murder, and all sorts of other negativity, is plausible? It is the heart primarily that stores fear? If so, another reason to "be not afraid," for in our fear we produce all sorts of monsters of others. Yet, we need a measure of fear, as your author states, to keep us from walking down a dark alley in the middle of the night or thinking we are able to drive a car after having imbibed at "happy" hour?

 

Thanks a ton. I love to have the mind stretched around a new understanding of something!! You have done that for me in your post! I'll run with this new way of looking at things.

 

-CC in MA

[Guest ConservativePessimist]

Excuse me, ShackledNoMore. (don't know how to edit on this dealy yet).

[currentchristian]

This kind of tape writing happens in church as the preacher and every one else carrying the mental virus reinforces every week that Atheists are immoral, they eat babies and have no moral conscience to hold them back. Of course, those who allow those tapes to drill or bury themselves deep into their minds will then do really stupid things like tell their christian kid not to play with the Atheist kid, for fear that the daddy might run around the house naked and who knows maybe the mommy too. And we know how evil nudity is don't we????!!!

 

I agree with this and would add that this "tape writing" happens in regard to lots of other groups the conservative wing of the Christian religion deems less than desirable. In fact, I'd say homosexuals are more demonized by the conservative wing of the Christian religion than are atheists. (Of course, Richard Dawkins is getting a lot of thumbing these days!)

 

I would stretch your point, however, to be more "ecumenical" and say that all groups have a tendency to play the same tape over and over and over again, further entrenching their "rationalized" or "revealed" truths upon their congregation. I have read many times on this forum, for example, how stupid and silly and childish Christians are. Indeed, some are but many are not. We all need to be wary of groupthink and groupspeak about what our group thinks of other groups, and we all have to be wary of the viruses that attach themselves to our minds and hearts.

 

-CC in MA

[Asimov]

I DO NOT have a handle on the ultimate truth (and a little secret: neither does anyone else).

 

Assuming there is an ultimate truth.

 

Recognizing this makes it a lot harder to be smug about moral superiority. And anyone who uses a self professed moral superiority to behave badly is NOT morally superior: the bad behavior and justification are not moral at all.

 

How do you know someone is behaving badly unless you have a superior moral stance?

[currentchristian]

Of course, and I don't think Varokhar is discounting the value of emotions, but we are talking about reasoning out why things are right or wrong and whether or not they are right or wrong.

 

Pretty much so; perhaps I should've said that rationality is more important than emotionalism, as individual emotions do figure into it, as Mongo correctly noted. Yet, reason holds a more important place, I believe, since using feelings to determine right or wrong is, like Asimov said, arbitrary.

 

In the end, morals and ethics need a rational base.

 

We have established the fact, and many seem to agree, that rationality (reasoning mind) and emotionalism (heart) have their roles to play in our decision making. I suppose the sway we give each would depend on the issue. For example, it is not rational to believe that one will marry someone at 25 and truly live happily ever after. The evidence does not support this conclusion -- at all. But the heart sure does, and I don' t know that we'd be better off ceasing to believe that "eternal love" is possible between spouses. We would, however, be better of embracing the hard-nose fact that butterflies usually end and the addition of babies and mortgages and lawns to mow and jobs to attend are inevitable and if we prepare for them, rationally, we might weather better the storms of married life.

 

I like your new avatar, Varokhar!!

 

-CC in MA

 

How do you know someone is behaving badly unless you have a superior moral stance?

 

Likewise, how do we accuse someone of being judgmental -- without being judgmental?

 

-CC in MA

[Lycorth]

Now, what about the "former Nazi" reference. I'd be interested in learning more about that!?

 

I was a National Socialist for about five years (just before my deconversion), and an off-and-on sympathizer for around ten, going from hardcore racism to anti-racism several times. The bulk of my activity was online, where I helped run one of the National Alliance's discussion boards for a short while, as well as participated heavily.

[currentchristian]

Now, what about the "former Nazi" reference. I'd be interested in learning more about that!?

 

I was a National Socialist for about five years (just before my deconversion), and an off-and-on sympathizer for around ten, going from hardcore racism to anti-racism several times. The bulk of my activity was online, where I helped run one of the National Alliance's discussion boards for a short while, as well as participated heavily.

 

 

If you don't feel it's an imposition or invasion of privacy, I'd like to know more about how you became involved with National Socialism, what the National Socialist purpose is in America, how you got out of it, and what you learned about yourself and others while being aligned with the National Socialist movement.

 

-CC in MA

[Mongo]

There's a thread on homophobia in this strand. Your point about head/heart leads me to this conclusion: Homophobia is (primarily) of the heart, not the head. Likewise, racism (primarily) is of the heart, not the head. Homophobia and racism are "instinctual," having their origin in that subconscious tape recording about who and what gay people or people of color are and what they can do to harm others. Is this a fair conclusion from your premises? (I'm going to provide a link at the homophobia thread to a fascinating 1961 instructional video for boys about the dangers of -- not predators, which I have no trouble warning boys or girls about -- but homosexuals. Talk about a tape being entrenched in the heart!)

 

And so the Jesus' teaching that it is in the "heart" that one finds the origin of envy, murder, and all sorts of other negativity, is plausible? It is the heart primarily that stores fear? If so, another reason to "be not afraid," for in our fear we produce all sorts of monsters of others. Yet, we need a measure of fear, as your author states, to keep us from walking down a dark alley in the middle of the night or thinking we are able to drive a car after having imbibed at "happy" hour?

 

Thanks a ton. I love to have the mind stretched around a new understanding of something!! You have done that for me in your post! I'll run with this new way of looking at things.

 

-CC in MA

 

I'm not sure. I think we could blow this topic into a pretty complicated discussion without even trying and I'm on the cusp of learning new things about Coercive Pursuation that play right into this.

 

Rather than point and counter point, I'll provide more info on my view and you can see how much of it agrees with you or not.

 

The 4 tennants of coercive pursuastion are:

1) The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance

2) The use of an organized peer group

3 Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity

4)The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

 

When you add in an unending propoganda campaign to keep everyone on the same page, you will be certain to be able to convince people to hate gays, blacks or people with blue eyes (actual classroom experiment - NOVA).

 

While agree completely with Asimov’s point that everyone should take a moment to ensure they are making a sober and rational decisions, reality holds that even some very smart people will still fail to spot the error if the particular prejudice is burned (indoctrinated) too deeply in their heart.

 

Once a hatred or fear is burned into someone’s heart, it is my observation that some very intelligent and cleaver rationalization can take place based on the premise deep inside.

 

If you have visited fundamentalist Apologetics sites you will discover some clever reasoning.

 

Arguing with the fully indoctrinated believer will not succeed unless something in the argument causes them to question the deeper held prejudice/belief.

 

This is why (another theread) I have so much distain for the "Hell" doctrine. It succeeds on all levels to create an irrational fear and once it takes hold begins to be the foundation for a lot of unsound reasoning. It is very difficult to dislodge.

 

Since deconversion, I have had a very hard time explaining why I got sucked into fundamentalism at age 17 and stayed with it for 10 years. I’m not an idiot and yet I can’t count the times I’ve said to myself, “How could you be so stupid”. I am still ashamed to admit that I was a fundy because I see that as something unintellegent and unsound. What I’ve written in this thread is essentially my explanation of how intelligent people do dumb things. Searching this out has been a form of therapy.

 

Here are two interesting links on Coercive Persuasion:

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/brainwashing.htm The author seems to exaggerate the effectiveness of some techniques but the information is fairly comprehensive.

http://www.intotruth.org/apostasy/mind-control1.htm This one gets into religion and will discuss things many of us have encountered.

 

The Rick Ross institute has a lot of good things too. http://www.rickross.com/

 

Mongo

[Clergicide]

Hmm... so any ill reasoning could not help us go towards morals, correct?

 

 

I DO NOT have a handle on the ultimate truth (and a little secret: neither does anyone else). Recognizing this makes it a lot harder to be smug about moral superiority. And anyone who uses a self professed moral superiority to behave badly is NOT morally superior: the bad behavior and justification are not moral at all.

 

haha, I just had to repost this to make sure clergicide reads it. Well put shackednomore.

 

I said that deontological ethics are inferior. And they are. There is so no free will or reason. Any moral choice is predetermined, which makes the adherent a mindless robot. It forces choices that could cause the most harm, be inhumane, and uncompassionate, because of the mindless disregard for context and consequence.

 

Of course you could make a choice based on bad reasoning, but at least the option to apply reasoning is available in other moral systems. A deontologist can 'knowingly' make a choice that will cause the most harm. A significant difference.

[dibby]

Do you think reason and rationality are enough? The nazis reasoned that life was about survival of the fittest. They reasoned that in order for the german nation to survive then it needed to become the strongest. It reasoned that you needed to weed out the genetically inferior.

 

Is any good morality based on more than rationality? People can rationalise all sorts of horrendous behaviour. Maybe reason allied with love/compassion is better for morality? What do you guys think?