Moral Progress

After listening to religious leaders bemoan the “moral degradation” of society this weekend at the LDS General Conference, I thought I would write about the moral progression that humanity is undergoing. I’m going to cover some of the biggest steps forward in morality that we’ve seen in most modern developed societies over the last several centuries, although we still need more progress in many of these areas.

1. Cessation of seeing disasters as a curse of God. Some religious people once opposed vaccinations [1] because they thought they violated the will of God. I’m glad those views are not held today. I think the eradication of smallpox is one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind. Smallpox killed 300-500 million people during the 20th century, more than three times as many killed in all wars combined. The fact that we can eradicate diseases shows that much suffering is not necessary in any way.
2. Cessation of witch-hunts: Between 40,000 and 100,000 people were killed during witch-hunts in Europe during the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries [2]. People who are “different” in some way have long been treated poorly.
3. Treatment of mental illness. In the middle ages, madness was often considered “a mixture of the divine, diabolical, magical and humoral” [3]. This problem still exists today: “A 2008 study by Baylor University researchers found that clergy in the US often deny or dismiss the existence of a mental illness. Of 293 Christian church members, more than 32 percent were told by their church pastor that they or their loved one did not really have a mental illness, and that the cause of their problem was solely spiritual in nature, such as a personal sin, lack of faith or demonic involvement.” [4] Seeing mental illness as a function of brain structure is a step forward. I hope those steps continue until we see that the mind is entirely a result of brain structure [5].
4. Incorrect beliefs that masturbation causes insanity have been abandoned.
5. Abolition of slavery. “In the 1860s, Southern preachers defending slavery also took the Bible literally. They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, ‘slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling’ (Ephesians 6:5), or ’tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect’ (Titus 2:9). Christians who wanted to preserve slavery had the words of the Bible to back them up.” [6]
6. Abandonment of Biblical stoning. We don’t stone to death stubborn children. We don’t stone people who worship other Gods, or gather sticks on Sunday, or are not virgins when they get married [7].
7. Cessation of physical disciplining of children. The Bible says “spare the rod and spoil the child.” Child psychologists assure us that children are better off if they are not physically disciplined. I’m glad we’re listening to the psychologists instead of the Bible.
8. Acceptance of medical treatment over superstitious or religious treatments of illness.
9. General decrease in wars and other violence [8].
10. Rise of democratic movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and other countries. The outcome is uncertain, but the hope for positive change is strong.
11. Significant increase in the educational level of the general public, over the last several decades.
12. Giving women the right to vote. The feminist movement generally has opened doors to all kinds of opportunites for women.
13. Making abortion a legal right [9]. This is probably the one step forward that will remain controversial for a long time.
14. Availability and acceptance of contraceptives. Even the LDS church has reversed their original position, and now accepts and even promotes the use of birth control by married couples, although they still pressure married couples to have many kids. I wish the Catholic church would change to a reasonable position on contraception.
15. The granting civil rights to everyone, regardless of race.
16. Seeing racial discrimination as wrong. The LDS church abandoned official racial discrimination in 1978, which is wonderful.
17. The realization that homosexuality is natural to many people, and is largely immutable. The societal acceptance of gays and lesbians will be a tremendous blessing to them [10]. The legalization of gay marriage will be a great achievement, and a significant moral step forward. Just as many of the steps above were once controversial but now enjoy widespread acceptance, I feel confident that gay marriage will someday enjoy that same widespread acceptance.

Are we coming out of pristine past, where morality was much better? No. Is society collapsing, out of “moral degradation?” No. In fact, I think people are happier and better off today than at almost any point in our past. We’ve seen significant moral progress and are likely to see more in the short-term future. Democracy is on the rise in many places in the world, tolerance and acceptance have become more widespread, medical and technological advances have improved lives and will continue to do so. It is my hope that the wonderful moral progress we’ve seen will continue unabated, creating a brighter future for us all.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_and_religion
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt#Early_Modern_Europe
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness#Europe
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness#Perception_and_discrimination
5 http://bennionsthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/11/free-will.html
6 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-28-column28_ST_N.htm
7 http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html
8 http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=steven-pinker-violence-is-lower-tha-11-10-18
9 http://bennionsthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/03/abortion.html
10 http://bennionsthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/10/same-sex-marriage.html

Abortion

After a fair bit of research and thought, I realized that my position on abortion came down to something very simple: fetal pain. I base morality on promoting the well-being of conscious beings, but if the fetus is not yet conscious and cannot suffer or feel pain, then I do not think its well-being needs to be considered yet. In many cases abortion could be a very good thing.

Scientific research indicates that fetuses probably cannot feel pain until 26-30 weeks into the pregnancy. I understand some people being skeptical about the research, and wanting to ban abortions a little earlier than that to be on the safe side. I personally disagree, but it’s a reasonable position. What is totally unreasonable is the “life begins at conception” position, which is the standard “pro-life” position. Those people believe that a fertilized egg that doesn’t have anything close to a brain or any capacity to think or feel should be given human rights. I find that position to be totally unreasonable.

In many cases an abortion is a blessing in the life of a woman. The life of a teenage girl who was planning on going to college can be drastically and negatively altered if she is pressured to carry to full term, or if an abortion is difficult to obtain. Not only do pro-life laws cause harm, but because they’re usually religious-based, I consider them a way that religious people force their beliefs on other people. Because of the negative impact on the well-being of many people that is caused by this pro-life position, I find it to be clearly and deeply morally wrong.

Fortunately, if you’re LDS, I don’t think you’re obligated to hold the pro-life position. The 2006 Church Handbook of Instructions (the one I happen to have) states:

“The church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. . . The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion. However, the First Presidency encourages members, as citizens, to let their voices be heard in appropriate and legal ways that will evidence their belief in the sacredness of life.”

The key parts are that the church doesn’t have a stand on the legality of abortion, so members can have their own opinions on what should be legal. They can also believe in the “sacredness of life,” and support the legalization of elective abortion: the question isn’t whether life is sacred, the question is whether a fetus is a separate life or part of a woman’s body. So I hope you’ll join me in supporting a woman’s right to choose.

Can We Choose Our Beliefs?

A frequent response to my atheism is that I’ve “chosen” to be atheist, and that I must have some motivation for that choice. Many atheists reply that we do not choose our beliefs, but simply follow the evidence.

A bit of definition is needed here. I don’t believe in a spirit that inhabits our bodies, so I think every choice that we make is unconsciously a result of our genetics, our environment, and possibly some amount of randomness. Choices do not transcend our previous experience. The word “choose” just means the mental process by which we sort through our knowledge to select one of many options.

So the question really boils down to whether the mental process of selecting beliefs is similar to the mental process for choosing our actions. I think that it is under certain circumstances. I believe this because I have seen how humans frequently choose beliefs that are in their own best interest, without additional empirical or logical reasons. For example, a man who falls in love with a woman may convert to that religion (possibly very genuinely), even though he was aware of its doctrine and didn’t find it convincing before meeting the woman.

There are some limits to this ability though. I doubt that any educated, intelligent adult would be able to choose to believe that the Earth is flat. The best she could do would be to act as if she believes the Earth is flat. That is, the more you know about a proposition, the less you are able to choose your beliefs about it. At one point, my belief in God was a choice, but the more I investigated arguments about His existence, the more I became convinced that He does not exist, and the less choice I had in the matter. That alone doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m right, but it does mean that I can no longer choose my beliefs on the subject.

The other caveat is that the more non-epistemological reasons for believing something, your beliefs are less likely to correspond to reality. If you are interested in truth, you should attempt to choose your beliefs purely on evidence that indicates the likelihood of that idea being true. You are free to choose your beliefs for other motivations, but if you do, you’ve reduced the likelihood of your beliefs corresponding to reality.

Faith, the Spirit World, and Tolerance

Occasionally I've heard a Mormon ask, “Why is so much faith required of us?” Generally he or she means “Why isn’t there more evidence?” The usual answer is that if more evidence was given, it would diminish our free agency, because then everybody would believe and be good. I think that’s a great answer for why such little evidence is given, but not a great answer for the harder question: “Why are we judged by our faith?” Judgment by faith is comforting to those who find it easier to believe than to follow all the commandments, but seems terribly unfair to someone like me. It’s hard to see how believing something without solid evidence is even a good thing, let only why it’s a qualifier for getting into heaven. If I live my life as a good person, and try and help other people not for an eternal reward but rather out of compassion, but am honestly skeptical about the gospel, then why should I be condemned for it? My good friend Gavin Jensen recently wrote a blog post that has a potential answer: maybe faith is really belief based on evidence, rather than belief without evidence. He observes that a willingness to believe without evidence disconnects the believer from reality, and decreases the chance of having correct beliefs. That concept of faith makes a lot more sense to me.

There’s still a problem, in my opinion: I don’t think there is enough evidence given to justify belief in the church. And that’s where the Mormon belief in a spirit world comes in handy. That’s not a criticism, it’s praise. An immediate judgment based on faith right after this life would definitely be very unfair, and the idea of a spirit world makes a lot more sense. The very fact that I’d still be alive as a spirit after my death would be sufficient evidence for me to change my mind about God. I think the belief in a spirit world should make Mormons much more tolerant of skepticism and dissent. So when Mormons are overly zealous about keeping people in the church, I don’t think that’s a necessary consequence of their doctrine, I think it’s a culturally-influenced attitude. I suggest that embracing the doctrine of the spirit world and the tolerance that it enables would be a much better idea.

Economic Research on Tax Rates

In a previous post I argued that a flat tax in not intrinsically fair, and that there's no reason not to tax the rich at a higher rate if it promotes the general welfare. I said those rates should be determined through economic research. There's been a couple of interesting papers lately about the optimal top tax rate that I'm reading, and although they're kind of hard to follow, there have been some good simple reviews: I liked this one and this one. The take-home message is simple though: taxes should be much more progressive than they currently are.

Christopher Hitchens

Today Christopher Hitchens past away. I've read only one of his books, but read dozens of articles and viewed debates, interviews, and documentaries about his ideas. He showed that people who think often do not fit into a simple position on the left-right political spectrum. He was a fascinating writer and a good man. I'll miss his articles and thoughts.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s Beyond Religion

I was skimming the headlines on The Huffington Post this morning, and happened across a rather fascinating excerpt from His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s upcoming book, Beyond Religion.

He finds that both religion and science (thus far) fail to provide for the universal morality necessary for inner peace and world peace:

“Science, for all the benefits it has brought to our external world, has not yet provided scientific grounding for the development of the foundations of personal integrity -- the basic inner human values that we appreciate in others and would do well to promote in ourselves. . . . Today, however, any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics.”

And what is the basis for the secular ethics? Compassion: “The essence of compassion is a desire to alleviate the suffering of others and to promote their well-being. This is the spiritual principle from which all other positive inner values emerge.” The purpose/goal is also well-stated: “For it is these inner values which are the source of both an ethically harmonious world and the individual peace of mind, confidence and happiness we all seek.”

As I’ve mentioned before, since my abandonment of religion, I’ve been searching for a secular basis of morality as well, taking Sam Harris’ suggestion of seeking a moral basis in science. The Dalai Lama and Sam Harris seem like they’re on the same page. I expect that this book will be similar to The Moral Landscape, other than one of them is targeted specifically for atheists, while the other is more inclusive for all religions.

It is incredibly refreshing to see a major religious leader try and build bridges to secular people, and be inclusive of atheists. It’s incredibly gratifying to feel that kind of outreach from a religious person in a world where atheists are about as trusted as rapists (seriously, google it). My desire to gain trust for us atheists was part of the reason why I decided to be as public as I am about my atheism. Hopefully I’m a good representative of the atheist community. My experience at Atheists of Utah meetings definitely indicates that atheists are generally good, honest people. Hopefully other religious leaders will follow the Dalai Lama’s lead in becoming more inclusive and accepting of everyone, even us godless heathens :)