Quote of the Day: Socrates

 

The Nature of Morality part 2 of 2

As I talked about in part 1, I had been dialoguing with Beechbum about the existence of God and it ultimately came down to whether or not morality is an objective reality or depends only on what we as people agree on. I promised to respond to his point that marriage and ultimately adultery are not universal because of a handful of cultures do not accept marriage as we have in western culture. He pointed to two cultures as an example: the Na of China and Kung San in Africa. 

I checked out Kung San of Africa but I could find not example of marriage being unrecognized. All i could find was references to wedding rites. Sorry, but if you have wedding rites, private or public, your society recognizes marriage.

The Na of China (also known as the Moso)  is a lot more complex. Describing their society as not recognizing marriage is a little dishonest. They don't have the institution as we have come to define it.  Added to the myths and misunderstanding about them has not made the situation any clearer. The best resource I found on the internet was a pdf file written by Tami Blumenfield in which she attempts to debunk the myths. She points out that while to our western minds doing away with strict monogamous legal contracts, which is what marriage has become here, would promote promiscuity and abandoned children but the Na have little of that. I think that in evaluating their customs it leads us to view our own ideas of what marriage is and what it should be.

It seems to be that what the Na have is not marriage if you define marriage as a legal contract obliging a man and a woman to one another for a lifetime. But given that most of the children see and interact with their fathers, and the fathers are obligated to support the children and the children's mother, describing the Na as without "fathers" is a lie.  Of course they have fathers. Also that men have lattitude to have multiple families and women in their lives is not unheard of. The difference between polygamous societies and even our own with the Na is that the man is not legally liable to any of the women. She is free to be with who ever she wants. That's not marriage but it is what we call "an open-marriage" without the baggage of  legalistic or monogamous expectation.

Some of the articles I read seems to look at the Na system as a good one. But what does the Bible say is the ideal?  I know many will point to the polygamy illustrated in the Old Testament but never does the Bible neither condemn nor confirm that polygamy is good for people. Given the context of the Na, the system does not fall apart completely in a matriarchal world where the needs of the group/family are more important in the individual. In no way would this work in our patriarchal and selfish society. I'm not sharing my wife with anyone. In the culture shown to us  in the Bible, polygamy was allowed because some women would have had no means of support or protection if they were not married.  But I think one example shows us why it's not the best situation. Remember Jacob had four wives and according to Genesis between the wives and their children fighting, I doubt Jacob had a moment peace! No thank you.  Beechbum even admitted that it is best for a child to have father and mother in the same household...even the Na actually have that  although the households share the men.

The thing I noticed was that the ideal that all cultures really strive for is a man and a woman together in the same household with children...at least part of the time.  They all  go for it and all fall short without God. Why? Because it is a universal decree for the Creator, but because of sin, we can't do it perfectly without God. Much more could be said but the conclusion of the research I have done shows me that adultery is still wrong in every culture. The Na can break up and hook up with one another but there are still rules that govern their behavior. Rults that show that they still feel jealousy and want consistent and reliable mates even if they don't have a word meaning  "jealousy". So back to what the Bible says about the ideal. Let's end with what Jesus said.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." - Matthew 19: 3-12

See? We were never meant to divorce our wives for any and all reasons. The Old Testament was clear on that even as Jesus demonstrated. Marriage was meant to protect men and women not subjugate women or classify them as property! One man - one woman - is the best and moral structure for a marriage.

Sources:
Shunya's Notes: The Na of China
A Society Without Fathers And Husbands: The Na of China
A World Without Fathers and Husbands
Moso
THE NA OF SOUTHWEST CHINA: DEBUNKING THE MYTHS
Tribes in the Kalahari desert South Africa

The Nature of Morality part 1 of 2

I've been debating Beechbaum on Saturday on the basically the existence of God. We talked about scholars and he made some accusations against William Lane Craig who he says he can refute.  Craig has a  three-point  reasoning the  existence of God.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Subject: Slaughter of the Canaanites

Beechbum rejects the existence of objective moral values. He retweeted a tweet from last Thursday in which he tried to argue that a god is not needed to to have morality. I have represented his tweet below and will respond point-by-point. My comments will be in red font. In our interaction we focused on whether or not morals such as marriage was really universal and objective. He admits that it is rare for a society to reject marriage but he offered two such cultures: Kung San in Africa and The Na of China. I will be writing a second post on this. 

On Thursday 31st December 2009, @Beechbum said:

@_7654_ @zaloomination I brought up Euthyphro's Dilemma - Socrates' question:

"Is what you're doing pious because it is loved by the gods, or do the gods love what you're doing because what you're doing is pious?"

to highlight an inescapable property of morality.

Morality is not a property of the universe (nature) like say; the freezing/boiling points of water, E=MC² or the properties of thermodynamics. This is to say that morality is not, nor has it ever been, an objective property of nature, i.e. the universe. Morality is the excepted convention of the majority, concepts learned through the experience of our antecedents, the surviving members of an evolving society, it is subjective, (subject to a given situation). This is why we, as we gain understanding, alter conventional morality for the better: i.e. slavery, stoning (in more evolved societies), females as property etc. all eliminated from the list of acts considered pious, moral, or loved by the god(s).

Beechbum obviously believes that the Bible condones treating women as property but it doesn't. As for slavery, the Bible neither condemns or condones slavery as institution because the slavery practiced in ancient Israel is nothing like the slavery of Africans and native North and South Americans. In no way were the Israelites were supposed to think of their slaves as their own personal property nor could they treat themselves that way. Stoning was no different back then as firing lines, electric chairs, and lethal injection that we have today. Capital punishment is still with us.

Like the choice of which side of the road we drive on in the US as opposed to, say, Britain for example is a case where civil law is enacted to instill a convention throughout a populous that is neither right nor wrong, just excepted and practiced. Morality is the practiced conventions of a society, excepted by the majority as good and right for all, which is why societies are evolving toward the betterment for all in free societies, but stagnate into degradation in dictatorial societies like tyrannies or theocracies where a dictator or an oligarchy chooses (decides) what is right or wrong. This is also the proof anyone would need to verify that these United States are not in any way a Christian Nation, for the same reason that morality is a product of the majority's experiences as a practiced convention, allowed to flourish, grow intellectually, pragmatically and in freedom's vein as opposed to the dictates of an oppressor, dictator, oligarchy or patriarchal god(s). In other words, this country is based on actual morality, not the dictated precepts of a stagnant, logically inept tradition.

Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue. It is no way that can be equated with the thought that  adultery is wrong and stealing is wrong. If Beechbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay. Remember when it was against the law to live as a homosexual? Just because a majority of people say something is right, doesn't make it right. Hitler and many others have done all kinds of things that we find reprehensible. But why? What right do we have to say that we are right and they are wrong? We all agree that it is wrong for me to come up to you, kill you, and take everything you have  even if you can't stop me. Why? Is it wrong because it is wrong or because we agree that its wrong?  We know it's not the latter because then you have to say why "your good" is just as important as mine. As a Christian I have a simple answer: God says your good is just as important as mine because he created both of us in his image.

So, to the question; can one be good (moral) without god(s)? The answer is an emphatic yes! Now, the glaring question is, Can one be good (moral) with god(s)? I think I have given ample reason to doubt that very assertion, also emphatically.

Not so fast. Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is. If I think that stealing your car is good, then why would I be wrong? What if I could convince the authorities that it was my car and not yours? Would I still be wrong? According to Beechbum, no. Do you really want to live in a world like that? Didn't think so. Be glad that there is a God. . 

Alas, I understand, totally disagree with, but understand the fears of people who espouse their concerns that without some central authority, all is permissible. They forget that the reason our Founding Fathers and this country's Constitution is the crowning achievement of the age of the Enlightenment is because, "We the People" are our Government "We" have replaced the central authority and "We" decide right and wrong, that is morality.

Maybe it's because Beechbum does not live on the continent, but he seems to have forgotten that the government is organized into a representative democracy because they thought that the common man was unable to govern themselves. The checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches were put in place because they didn't trust people to not become power drunk or abusive.  Trust had nothing to do with it. There was an elitist attitude coached in "We the people". They really meant "US" (meaning they). I was three-fifths a man back then!  And they could have never conceived that there would ever be a black man in the highest office in the land a scant 233 year later. Looking at all that I don't want me or any other human being determining right and wrong because it will not always be in my interest. It's far better to follow after God's interest and trust Him, because we sure can't trust our elected officials.  We need to pray for them.

Twitlonger: @_7654_ @zaloomination I brought up Euthyphro's Dilemma - Socrates' question: "Is what you're