From: mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:02:18 GMT

Graham:
>>>Rather than being a slave to this conditioning, much of which is destructive
>>>and geared to producing mindless warriors, I think it's important to learn
>>>as much as you can about human nature, and from that develop a view of how
>>>you think a healthy society (this one isn't by a long shot) ought to function
>>>in order that each member of society can leave a peaceful and happy life.
>>>With this view of society in mind, you can then go on to develop a rational
>>>code of ethics.

Sullivan:
>>I disagree with your sequence, first understand "human nature" then develop
>>a "rational code of ethics".  I do not think human nature is understandable
>>outside of its (our) historical development. This includes the development
>>of moral codes. You can't IMHO seperate the two and then derive one from the
>>other. They are too intertwined.

Graham:
>I think we can and must separate the two.  By human nature, I meant those
>things that are due to our genetic programming (that may not have been
>clear).  I think it's important to understand the raw material we're
>working with, and then build a system of ethics around that.  For example,
>it might be a part of our genetic makeup that depriving people of sex after
>they've reached sexual maturity causes them to become aggressive and violent.
>If the goal is a peaceful society, it might then make sense to encourage
>sex among adolescents, rather than depriving them of it or making them
>feel guilty about it.
>
>Personally, I don't think that our historical development is all that
>useful a reference in developing a decent morality, because I think our
>society has been sick for thousands of years.  I don't think we've seen
>a fraction of what the human race is capable of, and we really have to
>make a clean break with the past if we're ever going to find out.

Sullivan:
Let's try this analogy. Genetically humans can use language. But our genes don't tell
us beans about what type of language we should have (accept that there are certain sounds
we cannot make). People have tried to invent "rational" languages but with no success
in getting people to use them.  All one can really do is study how languages develop
over time and encourage the spread of literacy. As cultures come into contact different
language interact. One can gradually push for rational changes here and there.

Now I don't want to push this parallel too far. Morality is not "the language of behavior."
That is way too simplistic. But their level of dependence on history is similar. If you
invent some "rational code of ethics" how are you going to get people to follow it? 
Plato couldn't do it. I think all one can do is find relative improvements and push for 
them within the context of one's real history and culture. 

On sex: Do you really think it is the teenages who aren't having sex that are the most
violent? I doubt it. What you've done is started from a rational view that repressing the
sex drive leads to violence and then derived a solution. (I will grant that you did
start with "it might turn out...", but let me continue for the sake of argument.) 
What you haven't done is any real research into the causes of teenage violence. 
This must include economic conditions, cultural messages and yes our biology. 

One last point. We simply cannot make a "clean break with the past."  We are not sick
in any objective sense. It is not possible to even imagine how we could have developed
civilization all at once on a rational basis. We had to go through a long chain of
development. Now that we are beginning to see this, we can being to have some conscious
effect on ourselves. 

mike@math.utexas.edu