Secular Morality

In one of our various discussions over what I prefer to regard as Kenya's favourite drink we touched on the issue of morals. The majority consensus was that morality cannot exist without religion. To quote one of the debaters “Secular morality is an oxymoron”. This got me thinking, can we really have morality without religion? Would secular morality in itself simply be a form of anarchy? Perhaps we should begin by trying to find out what “Morality” is.

According to Wikipedia:
Morality (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous.
In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society.
In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what people think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation.
Morality may also be defined as synonymous with ethics, the field that encompasses the above two meanings and others within a systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.

According to Dictionary
Moral: Adjective, of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
In my opinion none of these precludes having a secular morality. Morality, in itself, cannot be said to be religious, neither can secular morality be defined to be anarchy.

I would imagine that secular morality would define a system of conduct that enables a human being to live in society in a manner that enhances rather than destroys the fabric of human interaction, and the development of human potential. Granted that many of the principles that we consider moral are also in almost every religious book, it does make it hard to distinguish between religious morality and secular morality, that in itself, however, should not invalidate the concept.

Morality should be based on a few fundamental precepts. The right to life and the right to freedom. This implies not only that the individual has these rights, but also that the society he interacts in as well as humanity at large is guaranteed these freedoms. Not only should the individual have these rights but should acknowledge that other entities, too, have those rights. The only limitations should be when these selfsame rights abrogate the rights of others in this respect.

Most (not all) of the religious precepts ignore the second and limit the first except where it is expedient for it's purposes. All religions have some form of moral precepts. Not all agree, but in many cases those precepts do have a lot of similarity. But this is about secular morality, nor religious morality.

Given the fundamentals, there a a few questions that would arise from that. What moral precepts would guarantee these basic rights? In my honest opinion some of the so called “controversial issues” like homosexuality, abortion or even the right to kill in special circumstances can be answered by ensuring that the basic principles are taken care of while ensuring no person or group of people are capable of removing these rights, and if they attempt to they would have, at the very least, have abrogated their rights to freedom.

Most people take the golden rule as the ultimate morality. The golden rule says “do unto others as you would want to be done unto you.” I tend to disagree with this. Consider a person who loves pain and is into pain inducing activities as a turn on. Would somebody else, who is not into pain and such, really want to be done unto as that one would want to be done unto? The golden rule really should be “do unto others as they would like to be done unto them.” What you do unto others should be as per their preferences, not as per yours. What you do unto yourself, however, is as per your preferences.

Capital punishment cannot be a morally desirable issue. Capital punishment is an unrecoverable form of punishment which (if proven unjustified) can neither be reversed or adequately compensated. As such it should not be an option society should have at it disposal.

Imprisonment, while it does abrogate the right to freedom, should be used in cases where people abrogate the rights of others. Banishment from society and it's products would be a better option though it can only become practical when we find areas we can banish people to. Mayhaps when we discover other life supporting planets, or even if the population ever falls to a level where we can afford to have vast tracts set off and sealed for these persons.

Abortion should be limited to the persons who actually carry these babies. Persons who have nothing at stake, other than a hypothetical interest in genetic continuity or voter expansion. What is in my body is mine until it leaves my body, and as such it is my responsibility to either nurture it or terminate it. It should not be the responsibility of other third parties, whatever stake they may imagine they have unless I am no longer capable of making these decisions for myself.

Some “sins” like fornication, adultery, homosexuality et al should not really be an issue at all. After all whatever is done between consenting adults in their own privacy is really a matter between those adults. In the case of adultery (defined as a sexual act between at least two persons, one or more of whom are a married to a person outside this liaison) is really a matter between the parties concerned and should not be an issue for society at large.

Certain “commandments” like Do Not Steal, Do Not Kill fall under the right to freedom and the right to life. Persons should have freedom to accumulate, or not accumulate, articles they consider valuable and it would be morally improper to either curtail this activity or profit unfairly by removing them from that person without their free consent or otherwise. And persons should be left to live the life they want to live.

Incidentally, it should also be within that person's rights to terminate their own life in any manner they feel like, inasmuch as it does not directly infringe on the lives, or rights of others. This means that jumping out of my fifth floor window and bashing yourself to death on my new Toyota Premio is a no no. So would shooting yourself in the premises you are renting from me in such a manner as to create damage to my premises. However if you want to hang yourself from the nearest tree the only good thing the “good Samaritan” can really do is give you a stout rope as an aid.

The biggest advantage secular morality would have is that since it is not set in stone by some being it can evolve as society evolves, and it can adjust itself to situation that are new and strange without in themselves being broken. A new rule is simply set up against the fundamentals, and if it fails the fundamentals then it is immoral, if it doesn't then it is moral. Isn't that so much simpler?

A meeting with Her Pinkiness

Tony Lawrence : The Ten Commandments
(A Man recounts the decalogue to Her Pinkness.)

The IPU shook her mane and stamped her feet impatiently. Her Holy Nostrils flared. "Anything else?" she inquired of the Man who stood quivering in front of her.

"Um…" The Man was obviously nervous. He was not enjoying this conversation, and the IPU's growing impatience was not helping. "Um, yes, we are, um, not…" The Man paused and then continued in a rush, "not supposed to covet our neighbour's wife!"

The IPU snorted loudly. "That's rich!" she bellowed. "Now THAT ought to be an easy one for you insatiable little monkey spawn. I'll just bet!" she chortled.

The Man shuffled his feet and stared at the ground. A small slug was crawling slowly through the leaves at his feet. The Man wished he could crawl off somewhere else.

But the IPU was not finished with her interrogation. "You have missed one. I believe you said there were ten commandments, and you have only told me nine. What is the tenth, insignificant turd?"

The Man swallowed hard. Hands clenched, he gritted his teeth and raised his head. He stared into the flashing eyes of the Holy IPU. "We are tmf nthr ds for em".

"WHAT!" The Holy IPU fixed the Man in her regal stare. "Speak up, you ugly pink ape!"

The Man's hands were shaking and his tongue could not work. He opened his mouth, closed it, then opened it again. Finally, eyes winced against the inexorable results, he spoke: "We are to have no other gods before Him." He closed his eyes and waited for the Fiery Breath to consume him.

Nothing happened. Cautiously, the Man opened his eyes. The Holy IPU was simply standing in front of him, and actually she looked more amused than angry.

"No other gods?" she asked. "As in, no worshipping of the One True God, Her Incredible Pinkness? No worship of ME?

The Man again found the slug to be the focus of his concentration. Something about its slow progress through the field encouraged him. The slug would reach its destination, and he, the Man, would also survive this day. The Holy IPU would not reduce him to a pile of cinders to be blown away by the summer wind.

The IPU spoke again. "Where is this Mighty One who is so jealous of Me?" she asked. "Have you seen Him?"

The Man looked at her once again. "I have not, but Moses has. The Lord spoke to him from a burning bush."

"Cheap carnival trick," offered Her Pinkness. "I don't suppose you've seen any tangible evidence of this Dude's presence, then. How about intangibles? Healing of the sick, bountiful crops, that sort of thing? Actually, I thought the harvest was pretty poor this year. Shouldn't your Pal have prevented that?"

The Man's face plainly displayed anger. He was well aware of the IPU"s refusal to even listen to entreaties for assistance. She didn't care if his people lived or died, and made it well known. Pleas for assistance were greeted with nothing but insults and laughter, if they were even entertained at all.

"There has been sin."

The Holy IPU raised her eyebrows. "Sin? Oh, how handy. Let me guess: I bet there's been some coveting, and some bearing of false witness, and perhaps some harsh words by teenagers to their parents, so conveniently enough, your Invisible Pal doesn't have to shower you with bounty. How beautifully done: set you up for failure, then get you to blame yourselves. I love it!"

"God is not Invisible. God is everywhere!" The Man was sullen, but was also remembering a certain bit of coveting that he was guilty of. He hated to think that it might be his fault that the crops were bad, but…

The IPU shook her mane, and looked off across the field. "Go away, Man." She spoke softly, even kindly. Usually her words were caustic, full of sarcasm and disgust. But now she seemed almost tender. No fire was in her eyes, and her hooves were not pounding the earth. "Go away," she repeated. "Go and pray to your invisible friend. Chastise yourself, and praise him. Punish everyone who will not join you in your delusion. Feel good about that, and believe that your Make Believe Buddy will reward you for your cruelty. Take his commandments, and rule your life by their words. Do not question anything, do not use your pitiful mind; simply give yourself over to this pathetic dream."

The IPU now looked sad. "You know, in spite of the fact that you are all incredibly ugly and hopelessly stupid, I had some hope for you." She paused, and looked again at the Man who stood before her, still afraid, but now confused by her inexplicable reversal of attitude.

"Things could have been different", she said, and then vanished in a puff of Pinkness.

The Man stood alone in the field. The last rays of the sun lengthened his shadow to where the IPU had stood. The grass was even now straightening up from the imprint of her hooves, and soon there would be no remaining trace of her presence at all. The slug had managed to move an entire pace away from the Man's foot. He stepped forward, bent down, and popped it in his mouth.

Gods suck, he thought as he walked back to his village.

Gotten from http://www.palmyria.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm

Of Coughs, Flu and God Almighty

I am trying to recover from one of those bugs that seasonally fly around. It been so bad that this has been one of the rare times I've actually gone to the pharmacist to get myself drugs for it. As usual the pharmacist asks what symptoms I have. Running nose, cough, fever, and one painful headache. All standard. Then he asks "Wet cough or dry cough." Usually I answer without thinking so much "Dry Cough." After all wet cough does give me a picture of some undersea noises as you cough through a mass of liquid. For some strange reason this time I decided to ask what the difference was. Horror of Horrors, I discover then that what I'd always presumed to be a dry cough is defined, at least by the pharmacist, as a wet cough. I, apparently, have been using the wrong definition for all my life!

Cough and flu done. So what has this got to do with God Almighty? I was tempted to say nothing, however something did come to mind. I have two friends on the opposite side of the God spectrum. One believes in God. The other doesn't believe in any gods. Then again, I have may friends who believe in God, or gods and insist that these entities exist while others insist that it is impossible to know whether they exist. What I have noticed with all these people is that they all seem to presume they are using the same definition of God, or gods, as the other.

Every time I challenge one or the other to prove their stand I get a mass of contradictions. One would think they are actually discussing different concepts while thinking the other is discussing their concept. I've realised that most of us have our own internalised definition of God which may not necessarily be what the other thinks of as God.

Which brings me to the crux of the matter. Exactly who, or what, is God?

Free Thinkers

Most people take the position that either God exists or God does not exist. Agnostics do not count because their position is that they are not sure that God exists. Thus agnostics would fall in the whole range from those inclined towards belief in God upto those inclined towards unbelief in God. In both cases (belief and unbelief) there is something/one called God which/who they either believe in or don't believe in.

Skeptics (who sometimes call themselves free thinkers) are akin to agnostics who are probably going to lean towards no in regards to the God question. Skeptics are generally prejudiced. In literature and discussions many skeptics give "logical" answers to prove that there is no God. A study of their arguments and "proofs" however tends to yield a complete different view. In all due regard many things about this earth and it's environment can be known. We can be almost certain that there are no mammoths alive on earth today partly because the earth is limited and we have explored almost all of it. Something that large would be rather hard to find. In the same way there is probably no bigfoot, or the tooth fairy, or even father christmas' toy factory at the north pole.

We have found no evidence for any of these things and in spite of searching their alleged environment we have not seen, or otherwise felt the presence of any of these beings. Thee is no logical reason why some humanoid creature could not leave in the Himalayas yet all searches have turned up nothing. So we can say we have reasonable doubt as to the existence of bigfoot, in the same manner there is no logical reason to think a toy factory at the north pole cannot exist and yet we have found no evidence for that in our explorations of the north pole.

In looking for proofs of God(s) we have not applied the same through search for the existence, and/or non existence. In common parlance a god is something whose powers are far greater than ours, who we cannot comprehend and whose nature we cannot predict. Something which is out of our reality space.

When defining something I must assume that definition and I are in the same co-ordinate space. This is the problem I have when trying to define God. In order understand God hesheit must be in my same co-ordinate space, however by being in my co-ordinate space hesheit cannot thus be outside the rules of my co-ordinate space. Does that make God human, or does that make me God? Most current definitions tend to put God outside our co-ordinate space and claim that the God(s) can quite easily manipulate humans. This would make god undefinable, unsearchable and unperceivable (is there really such a word?)

A distant god would evade our sensors. A very small god would be below our notice while a very large god would be above our notice. Only a god which fits within our reality space and is perceivable by our sensors would be detectable. This god would be almost human, or near enough as to make no difference. If we are manipulated by the gods it would be quite easy for them to evade our senses, unless they do want us to perceive them.

I do agree that the existence of God(s) has not been proven. However close to 100% of the perceivable universe has not been explored and as for the universe beyond our ken, the jury is still out on that one. Until we can come close with certainty that we have explored most of the universe (as we can on earth) then can we begin to make logical assumptions about the non existence of God(s). The fact that we have not proven God(s) to exist does not necessarily mean we have proven God(s) not to exist.

Atheists blow apart the beliefs of religious people using science and logic. They imagine that this in some manner makes their beliefs true. And yet it doesn't. Theists do not know that God exists. They believe that God exists. It is not a failure if they find no evidence of their God because the search for truth is not part of their system. Atheists on the other hand base their system on science and truth so when they are not scientific they are back to zero, just like the theists. But unlike the theists theirs is a fail for the theist applies no measurement to beliefs while the atheist does.

The atheists has taken a position that requires proof. He must say that he knows there is no God. Faith is a belief while knowledge is a certainty. The atheists claims to be certain that God(s) do(es) not exist and must thus give us proof. This cannot be done. There are no proofs that God(s) do not exist.

In the past religion stifled thought outside the "norms", science now does the same. We are indoctrinated from childhood with "scientific" facts and we are told these are unquestionable facts. We couch the facts and proofs in language that is unfathomable to the layman and require that the layman must undergo rigorous study to even be able to read, let alone understand these proofs. Anybody who does not agree, or tries to bring alternate theories is vilified by the establishment. People are shot down with credentials and PHDs. Alternative theories are labeled unscientific and unproven, let alone that most science is still currently theoretic. Doesn't that bring to mind the "golden age" of priests and church control of thought?

In the last several years science has generally stagnated. The theory of evolution is still a theory, Quantum theory is still theory, we have been standing on the shoulders of the "greats" and taking their theories as gospel truth (pun intended). We have fossilized these beliefs and turned them into the new religion. Where are the new messiahs to lead us out of our darkness?

Will the real free thinkers please stand up.

Intelligent Design

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by man; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by man.

The Good Samaritan

Once upon a time, in the good old bible, robbers beset upon a man. In a time-honoured ordeal, which is quite familiar to us Kenyans, he was beaten, robbed and left to die by the roadside. While he was laying there a pastor (they were called Pharisees in those days) also passed by. He prayed for the soul of this fellow and requested that the lord god lay tribulations on them robbers. Feeling his pastoral duties done, he passed on to attend to the rest of the folk of his congregation. An elder of the church also passed by, looked at him, made noises of pity and passed far by just in case the robbers where still lying in wait for the next victim. While that hapless fellow was still lying by the roadside a Samaritan (I guess in the Kenya of today we’d call him a parking boy) saw him lying there and decided to help him. He gave him first aid, took him to the nearest clinic and even paid for the fellow’s treatment since the clinical attendant looked like throwing the guy out if he didn’t have a penny. He then continued on his journey knowing that his fellow man was, if not in good shape, in good hands.

Ever since this story was spewed forth from the pulpits and used as an example of human kindness, Samaritan and Kindness have been made almost synonymous. In fact quite a number of people seem to think that being a Samaritan is equivalent with being good. Most of us have quite forgotten what the real message in the story was.

First of all a Samaritan, to the Jewish way of thinking, was an evil person. These were a tribe that had fallen out of grace with the lord god and were generally accused of all the evils we lay on parking boys or matatu touts of these days. They were considered evil and untouchable. To the Jew the Samaritan should have relieved the fellow of even the little that the robbers had left on him. It would have been just about as surprising as a parking boy taking you to a restaurant and paying for your meal because you appeared to be starving. In it’s own way that was a great leap of faith to expect help from those quarters.

So what was the real moral of the story?

The Samaritan stands for that person whom in our deepest thoughts we misjudge as incapable of doing a good act. That bitch who stole your man while pretending to be your best friend, the fellow who backstabbed you to the boss while singing your praises to your face, that bouncer who decided you don’t have the wherewithal to enter the hot new club, that police person who extorted 2k from you for a really spurious reason when your pockets were kin to the infamous church mouse. We’ve all met these guys. They do not seem to have an iota of human kindness in them. They are to be shunned, excluded and even removed from polite society. They are not people who you’ll want to introduce as friends or even passing acquaintances.

Yet surprising enough these are people with families, friends, feelings and even sometimes ooze the milk of human kindness. They grieve, commiserate, and celebrate just like the rest of us. They, too, have their human failing and foibles. Before we rush to judge we should be sympathetic, even when we are at the receiving end, and try to find that spark of humanness in them. The little we do may eventually lead to these guys becoming more human and making our lives richer for having known them.

Of wants and relationships

Modern man seems to overly interested in relationships. That same old thing between man to woman, man to man, woman to woman, adult to child, senior to junior, lover to lover, or even peer to peer. Volumes of books and many hours of talk shows have devoted to this topic. On would imagine that given this level of analysis we would have a universal panacea for relationships. The common theme in all these millions of words is how to make relationships work. The idea is always that I want abc and I really need this relationship to work however it doesn’t seem to have def or even ghi that I need to feel I’m in a relationship. We seem to be living in the I want society when it comes to relationships and, thus, quite a lot of relationship gurus are making a killing. What is it, exactly, that we are doing wrong?

Lets start at the beginning. What is a relationship?

Some dictionaries define it as A particular type of connection existing between people related to or having dealings with each other. Simply any interaction between two different entities. Thus that weekly spat I have with the neighbour who parks his car badly after a night out in my parking slot is a relationship. That interaction we have with the local Rhoda at that corner of the month when pockets are empty is a relationship. That minor interaction you have with the city council’s ‘corruption is evil’ parking attendants is a relationship. What you the (sometimes) faceless reader and I have is a relationship.

The relationship that has however caused literally millions of words to be spoken and written is that special relationship between two lovers. That strange feeling of being in love. Fortunes have been made advising people about love. Wars have been fought, whole civilizations died, families and communities have broken because of this thing called love. Why are these relationships such a source of pain? Why do they fail?

There are quite a lot of reasons but I’ll limit myself here to what appears to be the largest failing of modern living.

Men and women in the modern world are beset by many trails. The speed of modern living has conditioned us to always search for the fastest way of getting things done. We are a result oriented society, we want to see results immediately for effort put in. If it were left to us, we’d never grow oak trees. When most of us enter a relationship we imagine we will get tangible results in so many days, and a permanent commitment in a few more days after that then we can move on to a new project. For most men it simply involves getting into bed with the object of their desire, while some women it is in getting into the home of that selfsame object. At this stage we believe the project over and can now look for a new challenge.

This attitude leads later to some of those in the relationship to feel cheated by what they got, and feelings of resentment start creeping in. Unfortunately the lives of the rich and famous as seen on the idiot box make us feel we really are losing out on something that we could have. What a relationship really needs is time, all the time. I do not intned to imply that every waking minute of your time should be hell bent on the relationship, I also do not imply that a once a month phone call will do wonders for you. It’s the time invested in the small things that you do together. All relationships involve some level of interdependence. People in a relationship tend to influence each other, share their thoughts and feelings, and engage in activities together. Because of this interdependence, anything that changes or impacts one member of the relationship will have some level of impact on the other member. Thus the more micro things you do together the closer you get. And for those who might be thinking so, that’s not about the amount of sex you are having.

Think of the last time you told your partner you loved him or her. Think of the last time you cut an appointment to take her to the salon. Think of the last time you gave out a night with the girls to go with him to that dingy bar he loves so much. Think of the last time you surprised her with a bouquet of flowers when you hadn’t done something wrong the night before. Most of us in a relationship tend to ignore the tiny things that could make a difference to your partner. We think because we are in a relationship they should change to suit us while we want to remain what we are. It is a two-way lane. You’ve all got to sacrifice a bit for them and they have to sacrifice a bit for you. You need, even in your individuality, to take time out for your relationship.

African men are notorious for imagining that the lady they intend to marry should give up her independent thoughts and merge into the collective “family” while they can afford to maintain their paths. Careers for women in a relationship are thought to be temporary things while waiting for a man to come over and complete her life. How many of us think that maybe she does like the job she’s doing, or she would like to further her career to very high levels? How many of us even imagine that that lady you are in could one day aspire to the highest office in the land? And how many of us are willing to support them in that dream knowing that sometimes it will impact on our own paths and goals? How many of us are willing to sometimes let part of our dreams go in order to support our partner’s dreams? Your ability to do this will probably more than anything else be what will keep that relationship going strong.

A successful relationship is between partners. They evolve each other’s goals and dreams, encourage each other and support each other in whatever the other likes even if they sometimes have to let go a bit of what they want. We live in an I want and we apply the I want to our relationships not realising that many a time our partners to want, and we should be helping then, nay, encouraging them to want.