responsibility, innate goodness, and influences

Someone's opinion of who bears the Burden of Responsibility is a telling indicator of his or her outlook on life. When a person's moral Quality is deficient and therefore leads to deplorable actions, who should receive the ultimate blame? Should it be the person, or the way the person was nurtured? Should it be the person, or the irresistible compulsions within that person? Should it be the person, or the horrible situation thrust onto that person such that he or she had no other practical course? If more moderately apportioning blame in pieces, then where should the greatest piece of blame be placed? In short, is the person performing the action obligated or not to take responsibility, because of the influences that affect that person?

Clearly, Christianity and many other common belief systems that believe in divine judgment strongly lean toward the personal responsibility camp. (Divine mercy is also important, but the need for mercy emphasizes rather than minimizes the gravity of the judgment.) Maintaining the concept of ultimate personal responsibility is less common for secular belief systems that don't strictly believe in the objective existence of Good with a capital G or Judgment with a capital J. Secular belief systems have a deeper difficulty, too, which stems from not believing in the mere possibility of transcendent human identity, consciousness, and decisions. If humans are nothing more than materials, fundamentally speaking, then "making choices" is no more than a class of physical phenomena. Separating out "human choice" from the influences on that choice is as futile in the secular point of view as attempting to separate out the path of a terrestrial projectile from the influence of the world's gravity! Thus, the inherent difficulty of obtaining the necessary data and theories is the only barrier to creating a "moral calculus" that can compute what someone's decisions will be from the state of the matter that makes up him or her. The decision's influences are the decision.

Given that a completely secular point of view leads to that conclusion, then it's also apparent that the secular point of view has no basis for the notion of "innate" universal human morality. When a self-admitted, completely secular person tries to assert that people are "basically good", his or her perspective constrains that assertion to really mean any of several possibilities:

• People are basically good because people are basically raised to be good, perhaps through a process of "society evolution" in which societies that don't instill "basic goodness" self-destruct or are crowded out by prosperous societies that do. This is the "nurture" way to believe in secular basic goodness.
  
• People are basically good because of the usual genetic evolution. That is, people whose genes don't include "basic goodness" self-destruct (not producing offspring) or are crowded out by people whose genes do. This is the "nature" way to believe in secular basic goodness.
• People are basically good because over time, as people mature, they discover that "basic goodness" is the most economic, cost-effective way to achieve their desires when interacting with others. This is the "economic" or "game theory" way to believe in secular basic goodness.

Those possibilities are by no means self-evidently true or supported by most of the actual historical evidence of humanity. Someone who wants to exclude supernatural reality but still believe people are "inherently good" is ignorant, misinformed, or deluded (I'm not too hesitant to apply those terms when they don't hesitate to apply those terms to me). As pieces of matter, people can only be neutral, or be good in the same fashion that rocks or bears can be good. The question of what characterizes a "blank slate" tabula rasa person is close to meaningless in a secular context. In the Christian context, the innate soul of a person mirrors God's capabilities of rationality and morality, is always free to choose regardless of material influences, but is prone to an evil elevation of itself.

"my reality is more real than yours"

In the spirit of the entry about reality disagreements, permit me to provide the service of reminding everybody that claiming a belief system's level of correctness based on its level of "reality" is talking in circles. One's belief system is an important factor in what one's overall concept of reality is.

Someone can't prove a set of propositions, like the content of a belief system, to be true without: 1) assuming the truth of one or more statements in the set (known as axioms), or 2) building on a true statement independent from and external to the set. The nature of reality is part of a belief system. Using a belief system's notion of ultimate reality to try to prove that belief system is ridiculous! It's comparable to a Christian claiming God exists because the Bible proves it (since the Bible's authority is grounded in God's existence, its authority can't logically prove God's existence on its own).

The next time someone says "reality has a ____ bias", ignore it for the snide hooey it is.

real disagreements about real things

Statements that correspond to reality are true, and statements that don't are false. I suppose most people would agree. Truth is objective.

Hence, who has more respect for truth: someone who acknowledges, perhaps even embraces, that disagreements about the truth imply that someone is wrong, or someone who would rather believe in a fluid and subjective "truth" for the magical result that everybody disagrees but nobody is wrong? When our irreconcilable ideas conflict, yet remain simultaneously true, the "truth" of those ideas means something entirely different than "corresponding to reality". And the consequence is our ideas being neither right nor wrong. What is the value of being "right" about the truth, while the opposite "wrong" ideas are also true?

A common objection is that "spiritual" truth is different in quality from "material" truth, so various spiritual "perspectives" can be right; this is the "all ways lead to God" mentality. It works in the abstract. Just picture the Higher Power as having diverse manifestations and every person having the inborn capability to connect to that Higher Power with diverse techniques. Unfortunately, it falls apart almost immediately when the "ways" and the "God" (gods?) are substituted with much different definitions by different people, such that it's nonsensical to keep thinking everybody's talking about the same stuff. If one person's god is named Larry, and the way to please Larry is to live soberly, but another person's god is named Curly, and the way to please Curly is to engage in revelry, how ridiculous is it to say that 1) either way will please either god, or merely 2) Larry and the Curly are the same god? (Don't even consider the savage god Moe who's pleased by the harming of infidels!) "Spiritual" truth must be similar to "material" truth in order for "truth" to have a consistent basis. Christianity opponents use an eerie echo of this same argument when they state that the content of Christianity (and, to be fair, every other religion) should be subject to scientific methods. They say that Christianity has no scientific proof. They and the Christians are alike in saying that Truth is Truth. Christians simply believe in a broader range of sources of Truth.

Alternatively, someone can compromise and harmonize spiritual disagreements by diplomatically asserting that everyone is partially right. Unfortunately, this too falls apart as soon as someone asks the follow-up question, "partially right about what?" Partially right indicates the state of being an approximation of reality. Isn't this meaningless unless the reality is known? Someone can't approximate what doesn't exist, and someone surely can't approximate anything at all without acknowledging the approximation to possibly be very weak. The point is, to say that everyone is partially right is to conceive a right ideal which partially matches what everyone thinks. That right ideal is the definitive truth, so we are back to saying that Truth is something in particular.

Don't minimize disagreements by pretending the disagreements don't exist or don't matter. Disagreements don't arise by accident, and each of the disagreeing parties has a stake in being right. To pretend otherwise is as presumptuous or arbitrary as those in the disagreement.

a musical contradiction

Regardless of genre specifics, musical forms have long been criticized for being inherently unacceptable or at least unsuitable. For just as long, the defenders of each musical form have had a defense: notes, beats, chords, and instruments have no inherent meaning. In short, musical forms should be evaluated and enjoyed apart from lyrics, content, and context.

So be it. However, if someone uses that defense for a musical form, isn't it contradictory to then show automatic disdain for "Christian-ized" works in that musical form? If your musical form is really innocent fun because lyrics, content, and context don't matter, how can Christian lyrics or content or context change your opinion of a work in that musical form?

You can't have it both ways. Either your musical style is blameless and harmless because factors extraneous to the music are irrelevant, or Christians performing your musical style are patently ridiculous because the actual music is only a part of the total musical experience. Choose.

Worldview Fragment: middling morality

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The entry on False Amorality made the point that almost everyone has some morality, no matter how slight, exotic, or implicit. This statement will be met with zero shock both by practicing Christians and by anyone who vocally supports opposite ideas. However, it will be ignored or puzzled-over by the swath of people who see themselves not only as separate from the Christian or anti-Christian sides, but separate from any and all "inflexible, simplistic, dogmatic" sides. That is if they can be prevailed upon to (care enough to) express an opinion at all. They may "beg the question morally" when faced with a decision, refusing to trouble themselves with the underlying principles. When pressed, they will appeal to no moral authority beyond common-sense and personal conscience, or just say that everyone in the world should be respectful and nice to each other.

"Respectful" and "nice" are altogether worthier virtues than usually acknowledged, but even the actions and attitudes that these two entail aren't the same to all people. Is being "nice" just not hurting others intentionally, or is it actively helping them? What precise degree of sacrifice, whether time or money or effort, does "nice" demarcate? Similar questions plague "respectful". Is it respectful to always be formal until given permission otherwise, or to be informal and transparent so others feel welcome and at ease? How respectful must one be to one's opponents, and how should it be expressed? Moreover, how does one answer the charge of subcultures and counter-cultures, that insincere niceness and respectfulness are phony, even hypocritical?

"Common-sense" morality generally avoids extremes, because common-sense refers to the knowledge people have learned out of habitual exposure to everyday life and society. Unless someone has been habitually exposed to extreme morality, naturally they won't include it in common-sense. But it's also true that the common-sense morality absorbed by a spoiled rich person probably differs from the common-sense morality absorbed by a middle-class person, and both probably differ from the common-sense morality absorbed by a desperately-poor person. Common-sense morality varies by culture too. Each culture has its own moral blindnesses.

In the same way, an individual's common-sense will contain contradictory moral concepts as a result of the many shades of experiences which have shaped the individual over time. The opposite influences will press him or her to approach a tipsy middle ground of morality, a middling morality. This middle ground is characterized by someone believing in something, but only under certain conditions. The conditions enable him or her to simultaneously pick up moral notions from drastically different perspectives yet expect to combine them.

Middling morality is the expected outcome of someone drifting through a sea of ideas but clinging to none in the attempt to be "balanced" and "good enough". The prevalence of middling morality is in large part also what makes its content feel acceptable--just don't rock the boat, and everyone will get along swimmingly. Middling morality's top goal is to lead its practitioner down the road of greatest comfort. To determine what important causes to work on, what social ills to remedy, all one must do is select the ones that are most highly publicized and trendy. The point at which to apply the brakes to doing good is the point of great inconvenience or discomfort. Then ward off guilt by saying that "extreme" goodness is for the "saints" of the world (those freaks!). Similar tactics hold for fun activities: only weirdos would try to fool themselves into thinking through the wisdom of an activity instead of the pleasure it elicits. Doubly so for "immoral" activities that don't hurt anyone.

People who live by middling morality are fond of using hypocrisy as a shield against anyone who has professed a real commitment to living morally. "You say you're living a Good Life? What about this human shortcoming? Looks like it'd be more honest if you lived like me." In actuality, this charge of hypocrisy is empty, because it isn't backed by more than a cardboard cutout of moral superiority. It's better to set a high standard and fail, then to take the approach of middling morality, in which sincere goodness isn't even claimed and attempted. Middling morality is ordinary. It's prone to fads. It barely affects the world (or planet, if you prefer) at all because no deep sacrifice is involved. Middling morality's goodness, as well as its badness, is the true phony. Charges of hypocrisy are laughable from someone who plays at morality.

going backward to religious intolerance

Here's an outline of some of the "debates" I've read online about the worth of religion:

• Ha! Religion! Bash bash!
• Er...we would prefer if you didn't compulsively beat up on religion based on the slightest provocation.
  
• You religious people keep complaining about sensitivity for your "sacred" fairy tales! How dare you even make a sincere attempt to defend yourselves! I wish the whole lot of you were wiped out! [expletive, expletive]

I'm mystified by the logic behind replacing "intolerant" religions with intolerance for religion. Nor do I comprehend how someone else's vehement hate toward me is expected to convince me that his or her belief system is kinder than mine.

There were times in the past (actually, in the present, too, depending on location) when official belief systems were not only mandated but also strenuously enforced. It was known as religious persecution. Societies chose to pioneer new lands rather than endure it. Needless to say, religious persecution hasn't succeeded.

Now we don't persecute people on account of their belief systems, and all are expected to coexist as harmoniously as they can. This is known as religious freedom, in which unity and tolerance are important values. A "progressive" who advocates the extinction of religious belief systems is a "regressive".

False Amorality

Pro-Christian people and anti-Christian people have common ground, despite protests to the contrary. They both have the distinction of caring at all about the topic. They both have important rallying points. They both have persuasive leaders and throngs of followers. They both must tussle with life's trials, whether physical, monetary, emotional, or relational. Most obviously, they're both human.

Not nearly as obviously, they hold some of the same beliefs about each other! A perennial example of this is the charge of "amorality", the belief that the other group has no (valid) morality. Having no morality is different from being immoral. An immoral person may be aware he or she has violated a moral, while an amoral person goes one step further by not acknowledging a moral's very existence or rationale. Amoral people are convincing bogeymen because they dare to deny the moral fabric that helps define one's understanding of personal and social reality.

Although someone who holds to a relatively looser morality may be prone to suspicions of amorality as defined above, someone with a relatively stricter morality also is. The amorality just operates in the opposite way. If someone can be amoral by ignoring moral codes out of disrespect for sensible principles, why can't someone be amoral by adding moral codes out of respect for nonsensical principles? To the atheist, theistic morality has no basis, so anyone who practices a theistic morality has no true morals. From the atheist's perspective, religious people are "amoral" and inspire the corresponding level of queasiness. An atheist may express this queasiness through a statement like "religious fundamentalists can't be reasoned with". Of course, "reasoned with" in this case may really mean "converted to my belief system" and the concept of "reason" may really be "reductionism", but this language confusion merely reiterates that the "amoral" chasm runs along fundamental lines.

Regardless of whose viewpoint the accusation of amorality (in the broadly-inclusive sense described here) comes from, clearly the accusation reinforces rather than bridges rifts between the accuser and the accused, who sincerely believe in one or the other. After all, if I state that you have no morality (likely in unflattering terms), or that your morality is worthless (again, likely in quite unflattering terms), we have nothing productive left to say on moral topics. Discussions about morality only apply to moral agents. Debates don't go anywhere if one or more debaters refuse to concede any points advanced by others, or even bother to listen. An assertion of amorality is a method to rebuff conversation.

Fortunately for people who want to keep a dialog open, perceived amorality is false more often than not. The distinction between real and false amorality can be subtle to spot, for anyone who hasn't tried:

• Self-deception is more durable than steel. When a person loudly denounces any fixed standard of morality, the proclamation will be contradicted a few minutes later--as soon as that person is the victim of an immoral act. The selfish and/or manipulative will pull a con and refer to it as the shameful consequence of the sucker's foolishness, but will change their tune after the spoils are "unfairly" stolen by a double-crosser. Morality is present in people's beliefs no matter how they hide from it, and also no matter what they say to the contrary.
• Another entirely unsurprising (to Christians) indication of the falsity of amorality is what happens in practice when people purposely choose to live by it. (The paradox of making a rule to not live by the rules shall be passed over.) Those who choose amorality tend to have trouble not "accidentally" running into the need for morality later. A household with no rules about chores except "if you see something that needs doing, do it" sounds deliciously laid-back. Depending on the level of commitment to community and the spiritual maturity of the household members, perhaps a set of monks, it might even work. For less disciplined and caring people, it might work temporarily. Isn't it incredibly naive to imagine that a household randomly picked out of a street would function this way for a significant length of time? The lazy would be lazy, the industrious would be industrious, the controlling would be controlling, the pushed-around would be pushed around. Morality isn't arbitrary. It's how human behavior works. Taking a more important example, couples who live together like husband and wife, yet eschew "outdated" marriage out of lust for independence, will find their own feelings betraying the depth of the bond. Part of the need for a marriage-level of commitment is to prevent the emotional, financial, and familial pain caused by either party tearing apart the relationship at will.
• The danger of exposing someone to a differing morality or (sub)culture is the ease of mistaking, without any maliciousness, radically strange morality for amorality. Modesty is a prime example. Just because the customary clothing of a society covers up more or less than one's own doesn't imply the society has no concept of modesty. In any case, the problem in dressing provocatively is the sins of thought and action it incites, not the specific amount of the body it displays. Or consider swearing. It's only natural to assume that someone who casually swears about everything has no morality about what he or she says. He or she may have picked up the habit of swearing to attempt to convey that very impression, in order to seem threatening or free of scruples. But assuming amoral language use wouldn't necessarily be correct. The continually swearing person possibly could be very careful to not insult the weak, for instance. He or she could be the type who, in spite of saying that people should talk however they want, would without hesitation take offense at certain abominable statements. Swearing can demonstrate an appalling lack of respect for God and humanity; it must not be condoned. However, swearing is not an infallible mark of actual verbal amorality.

Amorality is not a helpful label to apply to people. It's not productive for reconciliation. It's not accurate, most of the time. In the Christian mindset, it's inconsistent with the universal love Christ preached and gave. He didn't damn people for knowing not what they did. He connected with them at their needs, at a point they understood, thereby enabling them to realize the worth of Him and what He offered. Then He told them to 1) repent, 2) follow Him. An "amoral" person may be more ready to hear the truth than the description would suggest.