If I were to define the parameters for an Objective Morality (OM), we would have a linear model, where a "+" (good) is at the very end of the horizontal line, and a "-" (bad) is put at the opposite end, with a "0" (neutral) is placed right in the middle of it. We now need to define direction and magnitude. Let's start with magnitude.
The magnitude will be defined by the quantity of the effect multiplied by the duration, which will always be a whole number raised to the next integer value. If the number of people (quantity) affected is zero, or if the duration of the effect is zero, then there is no magnitude and the event will be treated as neutral. A repeated event will cause a linear addition of the magnitude, and the time form (seconds, hours, etc) will be based on the highest form in the addition.
Now for the direction, which you can visualize as an arrow sitting on top of the "0" in the middle of the line, will either be pointing to the left (bad), to the right (good), or straight up (neutral). We now need a measurement to cause this directional setting to occur. Using freedom/oppression as the general concept as applied in a great number of papers on Well-Being and related topics, I chose to use that as the general director.
For example, if a husband slaps his wife in the face for not bringing home any beer, that is considered oppressive. She has no freedom from pain, both emotional and physical. This occurs at least a couple of times a week, so we would double the magnitude of "bad". And it has been going on since he lost his job a year ago, which would extend the magnitude of 2*52 (duration) times 1 (quantity). Now if there are two children at home who see this happening, who have their freedom to feel security threatened, then we would triple the quantity, making this a very bad thing indeed.
In a real example, a girl was trying to learn to read, and a man came by and shot her in the face as an example to the other girls in the village, so that they should not be learning to read. The magnitude to the minus is quite long. When she is taken to another country, where a plastic surgeon restores her face, and she is brought back to a point where her physical and emotional oppression are eliminated, then the direction arrow sways to the other direction, as a good thing. She now can return to her village where she had become a symbol for freedom. If she does nothing more, it is neutral. But if she seeks to encourage freedom for others, to free girls from the oppression of the village bullies, then that is a good thing.
But we are basing this one freedom versus oppression.
This works fine until we do just one more thing - once we add religion into the mix, then the entire enterprise falls apart. If the holy text tells you that a man is free to hit his wife or that females learning to read is forbidden by God, then, according to those who give credence to such things, you cannot label it as bad.
My wife brought up an example that provides a minor expression of that.
If you are Jewish and you hand over your baby son to the mohel to be circumcised, is this good or bad? After all, the man will hand the child over to someone, who will make sure that if the child squirms, he will be kept in place while the mohel takes his knife, causes pain, daubs the bleeding point of flesh with a gauze, and puts a bit of cloth that was soaked into the baby's mouth to dull the pain.
Certainly, on our scale, the arrow would be pointing to the minus side, as bad, although the magnitude would not be so great unless there was a problem during the procedure or during the time that follows. But it is still bad, using this programming logic. But we cannot call it bad because God said that we have to do it, and once you apply religion to the mix, the formula falls apart, because religion overrules everything else.
So in the world, where there is religious violence, religious intolerance, and religious indifference, so long as we give "religion" the ability to overrule any logical application of what is right or wrong, then it is valid to say "who are you to apply your morals to another society"? This was true in the USA when it came to slavery, as Andrew Jackson held up the Bible and proclaimed that "God is on our side, for we follow His word!" From that view, slavery could not be judged as bad, because God told Moses that it was OK.
I bring this up because the faithful cannot say "without our book, there is no such thing as objective morality". As you can see, we can define an objective morality that is not associated with any holy text. However, our global problem is that we give all religions a free pass, resetting the arrow from "-" to some other direction, saying "wife beating in that culture is supported by the Koran, and so it isn't bad" or "slavery is approved by God, and so it isn't bad".
Religious morality is not objective morality. Is that good?
No comments:
Post a Comment