Her Evil In Modern Thought was an awesome tour de force through modern philosophy and events. Highly recommended.

Looking forward to hearing about the new book.

Social neuroscience provides the best “universal” for morality because it relies on a deep understanding of human physiology and how it evolved. The pro-social behavior one finds in (most of) the 10 commandments became normative because those principles emerged naturally as “what works best” to co-regulate us as a social species. This new brain science shows that pro-social behavior is “good for us” in the same way that a balanced diet is good for us. Both are what our brains and bodies require for proper functioning. This is all spelled out in LONELINESS: Human Nature and the Need for Social Conncetion by John Cacioppo.

Democrats need to find a way and a language to co-opt the moral argument and high-ground. I’m so sick of Republican’s appeal to the South.

How are we going to defeat the fundamentalists?

O’bama should have chosen Hillary as her VP. No matter what her negatives at least she’d be out there right now kicking up some dust and scathingly cutting into Republican nonsense and taking back some of that moral argument.

The sense and communication of outrage!

Progressives in politics need to craft a moral-cultural language that is on a higher level than the fundalmentalist, yet has enough bite to capture the country’s passion.

Hope O’bama is crafting some morally-resonating slogans to wield at the debates.

Jack Beatty is a liar. I’m listening to him right now say that Sarah Palin’s town required rape victims to pay for their own ‘rape kits.’ Is he working for the Obama campaign or is he trying to pass himself off as an indepent-minded and objective journalist. I used to have a little respect for him, but that’s gone because he has proved to be nothing more than a partisan hack for the Left. Wow, disappointed to say the least and why does Tom Ashbrook allow him to spew his venom unchallenged? C’mon WBUR, you can do better than that!

This is a true story. Wasila AK. made women that claimed to be raped pay for their own forensic kit to prove they were actually raped. CNN just completed a story on it. Go to the CNN site and do a search for Rape Kit.

Well, Charles, it is true that Sarah Palin’s town required rape victims to pay for their own rape kits. Facts are facts.

I’m more confused by the guest. Didn’t she say that Abraham was confronted by the mob? I’m pretty sure it was Lot, and that he offered up his young daughters in exchange for the guests, in an attempt to placate the mob. Not exactly an act to base one’s morality on.

Where and when does moral clarity fade into ideology and visa versa ?

Beatty a liar? Quite a moral charge!

That when she was mayor of Wasilla the town required rape victims to pay for their own rape kits seems to be a matter of record - a fact.

CNN reports here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html

Why do you have “”s around rape kit, hmmm? Haven’t you been listening to the anti-”" talk on the show.

I think that a certain revulsion toward moral certitude can be a healthy aesthetic that steers us from the shipwrecks that ideological thinking can entail. Perhaps a caveat that moral clarity must incorporate ambiguity is sufficient, but I would be concerned that an an overly-emphatic return to moral clarity could undermine a commonsense morality that is neither rigid nor weak. One person’s moral clarity is another’s ideological axe to grind, and advocating one without the other might be a little too subtle not to operate as just another excuse for fundamentalism.

Regarding the morality of torturing prisoners: I don’t agree with them, but my conservative in-laws would argue that the morally upright choice would be to torture a guilty person in order to obtain information that would save the lives of many innocents. It’s not that they don’t think about these things, it’s simply that they disagree. Which is why “progressives” — or, as we used to be called, liberals — like myself don’t place any claims to moral clarity — we can see the shades of grey and the unintended consequences of our choices.

Beatty a liar? Quite a moral charge!

That when she was mayor of Wasilla the town required rape victims to pay for their own rape kits seems to be a matter of record - a fact.

CNN reports on it thoroughly.

Why do you have “”s around rape kit, hmmm? Haven’t you been listening to the anti-”" talk on the show.

Jack Beatty is no more a liar than Charles, but both have reduced a complex topic to meaningless sound bites. A serious, impartial attempt to get at the facts of the ‘rape kit’ controversy can be viewed at

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/palin-rape-kit-controversy/

More than any On Point topic I have ever listened to, none has given me more clarity that I am a “them” when Prof. Neiman and especially Jack Beatty speak of morality in terms of “us” and “them”. For Jack, is this show only for his “us” and any stray “them” willing to convert? Not my understanding of an attitude of mutual respect in an open intellectual forum. I know he thinks I am wrong, and maybe I am, but some modicum of intellectual respect would be more conducive to moral clarity.

This discussion has some good points, but is intellectually feeble. Where is Milgram (On Obediance) or Wilson (sociobiology) or neuroscience (mentioned above). The Bible is a mess (Abraham and Isaac, ethnic destruction of parts of Canaan). We know the world in different ways even than the Enlightenment (and I grant that Adam Smith on the moral sentiments is wonderful). But where is the last century. Ugh.

Bernard

THIS is why I distinguish between Liberal and Progressive.
The moral relativism of Liberal thought comes from the lack of reasoning - the inability to express values. Hitler was WRONG - not just following a different belief.
I think Susan is right that Palin’s appeal to some people is her use of these absolutisms in her language - however misapplied and mistaken they are.

The left needs to listen to this argument - and THANK-YOU Susan Nieman!!!

Social neuroscience provides the best “universal” for morality because it relies on a deep understanding of human physiology and how it evolved. The pro-social behavior one finds in (most of) the 10 commandments became normative because those principles emerged naturally as “what works best” to co-regulate us as a social species. This new brain science shows that pro-social behavior is “good for us” in the same way that a balanced diet is good for us. Both are what our brains and bodies require for proper functioning.

I just wanted to second this. Human beings are biologically social animals. When I was studying neurophysiology as an undergrad back in the 70’s we knew that there was an explosion in brain size between the early hominids and us and we all just assumed that this was why we could perform complex cognitive tasks. (i.e., that humans were highly evolved engineers and accountants). But more recent research suggests that many of the areas of the brain that grew the most were areas associated with social processing, and research by John Tooby and Leda Cosmides backs this up, showing how we actually use social paradigms in much of our routine cognition. (In other words humans are ACTUALLY highly-evolved politicians and cruise-ship social directors).

And recent research also suggests that concepts such as “fairness” may be hardwired into us and other social species.

So, bottom line: philosophy about social behavior, including morality, would do well to be based as much as possible on neuroscience and evolutionary psychology.

Although I typically enjoy a good conservative-bashing, I don’t think this discussion is valid without a representative from the conservative standpoint on air to represent those beliefs.

Great show! inspiration with some grounded perspective. Shared values seem to be the only way forward.

Isn’t what Dr. Nieman talking about, relative to the Republicans ability to channel the moral “high ground,” is what George Lakoff calls “framing,” the skill to define their policies, no matter how immoral, in moral terms that resonate with those people who are hungry for a return to “morality.”

Moral clarity is a often will o the wisp. Yet our strong sense of others and probabilistic prognosis (a nifty technical term for the brain’s forecasting function) morality some meaning.

Wish more callers had an opportunity to express their perspectives before the conversation on “Moral Clarity” ended but surprised there wasn’t a more explicit discussion of “moral hazards” poised by rescuing giants on Wall Street. As Congress considers the $700 billion bail out, shouldn’t policy makers, regulators and consumers take a comprehensive look at factors which contributed to the housing bubble and outlaw conflicts of interest in the residential brokerage industry to prevent another trillion dollar meltdown in the future?

Your perspective is welcome on
http://friendfeed.com/rooms/recall

Hitler was WRONG - not just following a different belief

But Hitler is also a too-simple example to be very instructive.

Real-world moral problems really ARE complex and shaded with gray. What about our alliance with Stalin during WWII? What about our alliance with Saudi Arabia or Pakistan today? What about buying off one tribe of insurgents in Iraq to help fight a different one? And the basic flaw in (allegedly) pragmatic arguments (e.g., “better to kill one person to save 5″) is that you can seldom be that sure of the outcome of your actions.

Whether you call them “left” or “progressive”, the fact is that they will always be at a disadvantage because they acknowledge the true complexity of situations but the right can fit their simplistic positions on a bumper sticker.

Oh come on. I have never heard a liberal claim that Hitler was “just following a different belief!”

Thank you, Peter Nelson. Add to that the fact that the right has spent many years demonizing intellectualism, to the point where thinking things through is somehow associated with weakness and a lack of patriotism.

Ms. Neiman willfully and wantonly distorted the facts of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Here is what she got wrong: 1)God did not mention Sodom’s sin in his talk with Abraham; 2)Lot offered the rapists his daughters, and they rejected them; 3)there was no mention of raping the men to death.
Two questions: 1)How can Ms Neiman have moral clarity when she has no ocular clarity? 2) How can her messiah Obama have moral clarity when he sat in the pews of the hate monger Jeremiah Wright for twenty years?
I am a centrist. Both the left and the right are driven by their hatred of one another and lack moral clarity.

I don’t hate the right. I just think they’re wrong.

Neiman, while I respect her pursuit of truth, is repackaging tired leftist philosophies of progress and relative morality. Of course she paints the Medieval Period as one of superstition. I can’t believe people are still buying this. As if the beloved Enlightenment came out of nowhere, like the big bang? Pursuit of knowledge, separation of church and state, science, care for the poor, the entire university system is a product of the Middle Ages.
And a tip to the Left: you won’t gain “religious” votes until you reject your stance on abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage. Its that simple.
I also believe the Republican’s to have major moral problems, but most Christians would violate their conscience by voting for a Democrat.

The Bible is a mess (Abraham and Isaac, ethnic destruction of parts of Canaan).

Or as some people call it, “The Final Solution to the Canaanite Problem”.

Actually, I might hate Bill O’Reilly. But I don’t consider him a real right-winger. He’s more of an entertainer, like Sammy Davis Jr. or Liza Minnelli. If political/social commentary hadn’t worked out for him, he’d be hosting Hit in the Nuts with Bill or America’s Next Top Yodeler. But I do hate the sight of his big, stupid face. Also his big, stupid neck. And his whiny, stupid voice. But a true believer, like the late, lamented, elegant Tony Snow, I don’t hate — you have to appreciate that they are honestly, earnestly, trying to do the right thing. They just happen to be — in my opinion, and recent history backs me up — terribly, tragically misguided.

Someone once said “If the end doesn’t justify the means, then what does?” Scary, eh?

As if the beloved Enlightenment came out of nowhere, like the big bang? Pursuit of knowledge, separation of church and state, science, care for the poor, the entire university system is a product of the Middle Ages.

That’s a bit of hyperbole.

Everyone claims to be pursuing knowledge, but the underlying epistemology is what separates the Enlightenment from the Middle Ages. Ask Galileo or anyone else who found their scientific discovereis at odds with religion’s received wisdom. The development of the scientific method and concepts like falsifiability flew in the face of the religious-based epistemology that preceded it (as well as the rhetorical logic of the Greeks).

And I’d be fascinated to know why you think there was a separation of Church and State in the middle ages. Yes, kings sometimes clashed with Popes or Church authorities, but it was not because they were trying to establish secularism - most of them still regarded themselves to rule by divine authority, and had no second thoughts about enforcing religious rules on subjects. The Scottish Enlightenment philosophers such as Hume or Smith (among others) were motivated by a reaction to churce-based philosophies of the university there. In fact much of the Enlightenment was a reaction to the Middle Ages rather than being inspired by it.

Everything I know about the Middle Ages I learned from Time Bandits. Jolly good!

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/273965.php

The story has been debunked already–the one about the rape kits.

Yes, Beatty remains a liar, at worst, or an shaver of the truth at best.

The Beatty lie has already been debunked–just do a little research and you’ll see that no one was ever charged for the rape kit while Palin was mayor.

But Bill Ayers was a terrorist and is still unapologetic about his past actions.

As a matter of fact, I think that Time Bandits provided a more thought-provoking, nuanced take on morality than today’s On Point:

Kevin: Yes, why does there have to be evil?
Supreme Being: I think it has something to do with free will.

and

Evil: God isn’t interested in technology. He cares nothing for the microchip or the silicon revolution. Look how he spends his time, forty-three species of parrots! Nipples for men!
Robert: Slugs.
Evil: Slugs! HE created slugs! They can’t hear. They can’t speak. They can’t operate machinery. Are we not in the hands of a lunatic?

That’s right, Charles, don’t let the facts trip you up.

The Right have turned themselves into congenital lyars because they know that what they really want to do, gain power over the country to do one of three things:

1) Enrich themselves beyond need — the Business conservatives looking for low taxes and/or government handouts

2) Establish their version of morality on the country — the Religious Right

3) Establish a small government that does nothing more than fund National Defense, the Courts and police — the ideological Libertarians

Currently, the Business conservatives laugh all the way to the bank as they use the Religious Right to get their representatives elected and appoint judges that, while nominally supporting religious goals, work to mold the law to favor the rich.

None of these are particularly patriotic in the sense of being their brother’s keeper and working for social justice. But as the current economic crisis is showing, the country NEEDS the middle and lower classes to have enough money to spend to buy the products that the rich need to sell to make their money. The problem here is that the rich decided that they could cut up pieces of paper whose value became more and more abstract, until it could be valued at whatever they wanted it to be. A Ponzi scheme truly worthy of the name.

None of the goals of the Republican Party as spelled out above, but not enunciated by the Party because they are not goals that most people support (to the extent the Party wants) could get the Republicans elected to office, at least in a majority role.

Thanks George.

I don’t hate Olbermann because he is frothing-at-the-mouth, hate-filled moron…

I just think he is a moron.

“define their policies, no matter how immoral, in moral terms that resonate with those people who are hungry for a return to “morality.”
Posted by Brinna Sands, on September 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 am EDT

I wonder, though, if those people are really hungry for a return to morality or underneath it all they know they are supporting immorality clothed as morality - and therein lies its appeal. Republican morality gives them the social support and the cover they need to feel good and to feel justified in giving free-reign to their worst instincts.

This is the deeper problem and why progressives’ morality does not resonate - it isn’t two-faced - it isn’t naughty and therefore exciting enough.

Neiman’s earlier book, Evil In Modern Thought, would be an excellent lens for figuring out why Republicans’ claptrap (the so-called appeal to cultural issues) keeps dominating the American political power struggle.

It is a problem of Evil.

And that draws me toward another point regarding the hardwired arguments for morality discussed above (neuroscience, social biology, etc). Very attractive arguments. But it leaves a vulnerability. What if certain negative qualities and evil traits are hardwired into us and further research only strengthens those positions?

We need to proffer an ideal of a moral compass that is flexible and malleable to changing circumstances and is flexible and malleable and independent enough to rise above hardwired tendencies and doesn’t lock us into it’s-just-our-human-nature stances that can boomerang back against us. We should neither be locked into the Bible, nor the science of hard-wiring, and I would not council either of those as the main direction we should take.

The crux of the matter is that the American political battle is a pure morality versus a two-faced morality and the success of the two-faced morality is not because the people are bamboozled, as Neiman stated, but is because it gives a gift to the evil inside susceptible people - the rationalization and cover it needs to remain operant.

If that is true, what is needed is not just that progressives use stronger moral argument to support their position, or to only invoke possible biological determinants of human nature, but that they specifically combat the negative side of their opponent’s human nature.

Therefore, if I was advising O’bama, I’d be telling him to not only invoke good, high, uplifting, resounding sentiments, but also to challenge strongly with “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”-type statements in order to, yes - shame, guilt and cleanse the evil weakness in voters that Republicans so defly leverage.

My prescription for progressive politicians: Don’t only offer a higher, stronger, alternative morality, but directly attack the underside of the American psyche - don’t be afraid to force Americans to reckon with the less appealing side of themselves.

“We are better than that! You are better than that!” should be O’bama debate refrains.

Olbermann and O’Reilly are definitely cut from the same cloth. The last thing they want is for people to get along and rationally discuss their differences of opinion, because then they’d lose their jobs. They rely on people’s irrational anger and blind hatred. They thrive on chaos.

As recent events so clearly show, “moral” is a relative and fluid description. Republicans exploited their moral stances when they needed votes. Once past the election process, Republicans ignored actually following those same “moral” positions.

Let me remind readers that Hitler was most vociferously a “Christian”. He needed to appear to be moral. He needed assistance—or at least non-interference—from the Vatican.

Then he posited the Jews as responsible for the death of his “jesus”, and thereby had the moral “obligation” to persecute/punish them.

Morality has been much maligned—to suit the manipulators. Morality is flexible and fluid, applying how and where necessary for the sake of some gain.

Let us not be deceived again by “the moral…”

Here is my workable definition for moral clarity (imperfect as it is):

1. Cultivate love and compassion in your heart (imperfect though this may be).
2. Practice these things in your day to day life and thoughts (imperfect though this may be).
3. Go out and do good works (imperfect though this may be).
4. Act with integrity by respecting our mutual humanity and through respectful disagreement when we run into the competing ideas and practices of others (imperfect though this may be).
5. Talk and listen without pointing fingers (least the finger be pointed at you).
6. Expand this to all life forms (imperfect though this may be).

I know people are going to say this is quaint–what about Hitler and all that–so it goes. I have been trained as a philosopher and I wonder when we are going to get better as a species at putting theory and sentiment to practice.

Most people like the Beatles: “And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make”.

And that draws me toward another point regarding the hardwired arguments for morality discussed above (neuroscience, social biology, etc). Very attractive arguments. But it leaves a vulnerability. What if certain negative qualities and evil traits are hardwired into us and further research only strengthens those positions?

But so what? It’s still better to have an accurate and complete picture of the basic system we’re working with if we have any hope of creating a moral system to manage it. I don’t know any moral system that assumes people are intrinsically “good”. An acknowledgement of our tendency to duplicity and violence is why most moral codes have “don’t’s” in them regarding that sort of stuff.

Mark, I’m all thumbs-up for your folksy definition of moral clarity, but it just amounts to a general, effusive anti-violent, anti-aggressive stance.

We need more. We need some powerful tools.

General, all-purpose moral principles isn’t enough. As Ken Conner points out (above) morality can be invoked to justify (at least on the surface) anything.

We need to actively advance our species.

Stress the value of education, so critical thinking becomes common place.

Abolish poverty, so religion isn’t such an attractive shelter for the desperate in the red states (in Europe where they have more of a social safety net, fanatical religion, death penalty, etc., doesn’t take on much of a hold).

Directly combat Republican’s exploitation of voter’s worst instincts. What they offer amounts to a frame of: Let’s do this evil together and call it good, moral, upright, righteous.

One more moral guideline:

7. Distrust the impulses both towards self-righteousness and over-intellectualizing.

I was a little disappointed with the show in that there was very little representation of the conservative point of view. Moral relativity is a very dangerous concept, and Hitler isn’t the only example. What if I think it’s okay to go to Iraq to shoot people… is that okay? What if they terrorists is that okay? What if they were involved in 9/11 is that okay now? Okay what if there not terrorists yet but they will be some day??? Is it okay now??? My point is not whether these things are okay, but anyone can justify those questions one way or another depending on how they feel at the time. If I feel it’s right that doesn’t make it right. What if I lost a family member in 9/11 is it okay for me to hate terrorists now? As a conservative myself, I often feel misunderstood and frustrated that “Progressives” do not really understand the conservative position at all.

People say conservatives are interested in:
1) getting rich and keeping the rich rich…
2) Forcing morality on others
3) Waging bloodthirsty war all over the globe with no regard for human life.

As a conservative I find this (not only scary) but a little offensive. I don’t believe this but I could easily say liberals:

1) Want a free ride, or want to give others a free ride. They would rather do away with capitalism and embrace socialism, believing government will save us all.
2) Has lost all touch with Morality and where those moral roots come from.
3) Are unwilling to fight to defend their country from those who would take liberty from them.

This is not productive conversation and probably doesn’t represent either side. So I say to both sides give up the foolishness.

As a conservative I believe the following:
- I believe in strong diplomacy backed by the willingness to fight for liberty if diplomacy should fail as a last resort. I do not necessarily believe in the Bush doctrine of first strike policy, but that doesn’t make me willing to throw out all my conservative beliefs, nor does it mean that I think a first strike would not be warranted if we had good intel. I think most americans would agree with that.
- The belief that our government was created to oversee and regulate us but not to run our lives. It should have very little to say about how I raise my children. It should also let stupid or foolish businesses fail by their bad decisions. If they invest in a bad deal, they go out of business and the smart businesses persist. That’s capitalism. If I buy a mortgage that I can’t afford, I risk forclosure. I know this will make someone mad but if a buisness wants to pay someone 100 million dollars, let them. When they go out of business the shareholders who own the company have themselves to blame for allowing the crazy salaries to their executives.
- Remembering that our morality comes from the belief in an ultimate moral authority. Even if you don’t agree with it, most of our forefathers did. That’s why they created “checks and ballances”. It comes from the Christian belief that MAN IS EVIL and cannot be trusted. If you don’t believe me about this… all I can say is you are entitled to your opinion, but I would encourage you to read up on it.

Moral relativity is a very dangerous concept

Whether it’s dangerous is irrelevant. The matter before us is whether it’s an accurate description of the world.

Even a casual observer can note that different people and cultures DO have different moral systems. This is not debatable - you can observe it by just looking around the world. So logically that leaves you with two possible conclusions:

1. Moral relativism is an accurate description of our moral universe.

or

2. There is only one “correct” morality and all the others at variance with it are wrong.

I think the empirical evidenced thus favors #1. But if you don’t believe in #1 then the onus is on you to show us evidence (and a basis) for #2. That’s always been the big flaw in the conservative model - they can’t come up with a credible basis for absolute morality that does not require some sort of received wisdom, which is why conservatives are so intent on getting everyone to believe like them, because it saves them the trouble of making an intellectually convincing argument.

With respect Peter, that statement is not true. The “credible basis for absolute morality” which you say does not exist is God. Without God, you are 100% correct. If you don’t have faith in God though, nobody is going to prove it to you, and I won’t try. But if there is a God, then how an individual and/or society views good vs. evil is a choice and it is relavant.

Moral relativism is self-contradictory since it asserts an absolute, which is, what is true for you is not true for me. In other words, is it absolutely true that what is true for you is not true for me? It asserts an absolute, making it self-contradictory.

Also, if you say that there is no right or wrong opinions, that is a hoax too.

Let me give an example of an opinion that can either be right or wrong. If someone says, ‘In my opinion, Osama Bin Laden is dead,’ can he be right or wrong? If Osama is dead, then he is right, if not, then he is wrong. He might not know if he is right or wrong, but he is either right or wrong. Both cannot be true at the same time. Therefore the proposition that there is no right or wrong opinion is false.

Absolute truth exists, and it is irrefutable.

I’m not much of a conservative (pro-gay marriage), but it was disgusting to hear Susan Neiman dismiss Sarah Palin and her followers as inarticulate and thoughtless. It is obvious that she feels morally and intellectually superior to conservative Christians. She came across as smug, arrogant, condescending and utterly without a clue as to what motivates many Americans outside of her ivory tower.

Democrats, by all means please do listen to this out-of-touch, supercilious elitist. Plan your campaigns around her. Karl Rove himself could not have designed a better advocate for the conservative Republican ticket.

Peter Nelson-

But so what?

You offered science and hardwiring research as the best content to base a moral system on in the future. It isn’t.

We have known forever that there are biological influences in us pushing us one way or another. Further research will sometimes strengthen the we-have-these-good-impulses-in-us and sometimes strengthen the we-have-these-bad-impulses-in-us. Saying, this is my moral stance and I have science to back it up, does nothing to prevent someone else from saying, well this is my evil stance and I have other science to back it up. My point that if we base our moral system’s foundation on science it is too weak, and leaves us too vulnerable, still stands. We are talking about what it should be based on. Not whether biology should be one factor among many to consider. It should be that.

If this program was about how political progressives should craft a plan to take back the morality vote, then one that is based on Biblical stories and wisdom, and one based on adding more details to the science of biological influences that we already know are in us, both fall short as a strong theoretical organizing principle. Occasional contributors, yes. But only that.

The strongest moral system would be based on moral content, principles and arguments that transcend our religious heritage and present our biology as an influence - not the main reasons and proofs of a moral argument. The bases of a moral system must emerge from a foundation that isn’t so easily defeated by counter-science and opposing religious notions. The foundation should be built on the moral content itself, at the emotional and intellectual level, the experiential level. Where we exist as a person and a consciousness. That we are also a bundle of neurons and our neurons nudge us in this or that direction, is an influence on us - a moral system shouldn’t be purposively built on it.

The goal of a strong moral system is to produce strong, unassailable arguments. Our biology is just one of many contributors and not an overriding one. Something so partial, and often weak, is not a good choice; does not make a strong foundation to base a moral system on.

It is always a mistake to give centrality to one, often weak, factor. Look at behaviorism and Skinner. Yea. Stimulus and response. Stimulus and response. Instead of offering it up as a single factor, a whole ridiculous foundation for a conception of human nature was proffered, ridiculously rejecting the inner life of our psyche.

Progressives should be careful what they base their moral argument on going forward. If the strongest foundation is carefully built, then the strongest most persuasive arguments will grow forth from it.

My concern is that there is a lot of discourse about morality but too little in the way of real practice to support it. I am not trying to be “folksy” and I am a huge fan of reason (and I support Obama). But the impulse to vilify the other side is not productive–and I believe the guest speaker today did use the word “vile” in reference to the right (as well as other polarizing terms). I do a lot of work in my community and I know who shows up to help and who doesn’t–and I can say that good people come from all beliefs and walks of life. Vilification is the road to the dark side of the force. We don’t have to agree–not even on the source of our moral foundation–to find our commonalities and work towards our mutual betterment. In fact the only way to move towards that elusive betterment of our species is to actually get out into the world and work from a center of compassion and love–hence the moral guidelines. I know all the arguments against what I am saying–but do you really think the guest speaker today convinced even one person to switch sides? And look at the conservative commentor above–you may not agree with everything he says–but does he seem evil, vile, or self serving? I see a man with noble intentions and many good ideas.

I would probably be classified as a moral relativist myself (of sorts)–but I also appreciate the problems with this perspective. The same goes for moral absolutism. In political discourse I see both sides jumping with glee on the misstatements and misrepresentations of the other side.

And I am not saying that everyone should just hold hands and sing kum-ba-ya while the “otherside” advances towards some sort of apocalypse (left or right version).
I do stand up for my beliefs all the time. But the idea that one can separate means and ends is a myth. Everything we do produces consequences and we would all benefit from a little less self righteousness and more reaching out to our neighbors. Not that I want to add to the overuse of Gandhi as an example, but why not–I would call him a truly compassionate man who practiced aggressive non-violence to further his beliefs. Peace with justice.

With respect Peter, that statement is not true. The “credible basis for absolute morality” which you say does not exist is God. Without God, you are 100% correct. If you don’t have faith in God though, nobody is going to prove it to you, and I won’t try.

And therefore it’s just your personal opinion.

Moral relativism is self-contradictory since it asserts an absolute, which is, what is true for you is not true for me. In other words, is it absolutely true that what is true for you is not true for me? It asserts an absolute, making it self-contradictory.

Just out of curiosity, where did you study logic?
Your statement is logically incorrect:

1. What moral relativism states is that there are demonstrably many moral systems and no intellectually rigorous way to prove any one of them is the correct one. It makes no assertions about whether any particular truth is absolutely true or not.

2. Even if someone did assert there is no absolute morality this is not the same as asserting there are no absolutes. You can have absolutes without having absolute morality. For example, the mass of a proton is an absolute, but that doesn’t imply an absolute morality, so moral relativism does not imply there are no absolutes.

Also, if you say that there is no right or wrong opinions that is a hoax too.

Who said there were no right or wrong opinions?

Absolute truth exists, and it is irrefutable.

No one is obligated to refute it. Since you are the one asserting it to be true then you are the one obligated to prove it, or at least provide strong evidence. Otherwise it’s just your personal opinion.

Have you actually studied philosophy or formal logic? I don’t get the impression that you have.

The strongest moral system would be based on moral content, principles and arguments that transcend our religious heritage and present our biology as an influence

If think the strongest moral system is the one that actually works in achieving what its moral goals are.

So there’s no point in trying to design a moral system that will be defeated by our biology. (A good example of this is trying to design moral systems to regulate sexual behavior - the tighter the constraints the less successful they are). So designing a moral system (or a political system or any other social behavioral contstruct) requires first having a clear understanding of the underlying platform, just like software eventually has to run on hardware.

Currently the breakthroughs in neuroscience are coming at a rapid rate and it’s increasingly clear that in many ways the assumptions we make that underlie our self-concepts are illusory. Probably the most alarming from a moral standpoint is the growing evidence that conscious “free will” is just an epiphenomenon. We all believe that we first make a conscious decision and then carry it out. Our whole moral and legal framework is based on this. Unforetunately the neuroscience doesn’t support it.

This is my response to Peter. Some of it is my idea and some of this is what I have read, heard and tend to agree with. I think if you believe in absolute standards, that they are not determined by me and hence, are not my opinion. They are by definition a fact. And belief in God, you could call it my opinion but I would call it faith. But anyways.. this is the best I can do for the logic argument which you say I make poorly….

If one culture believes that murdering six million Jews is morally right, it doesn’t make it so. Also, if this is true, then how can we condemn the Nazis? If there is no objective standard to apply to, then we ought not to condemn them because it would be meaningless. The only reason why we can condemn some things such as the holocaust is that we presuppose an objective or absolute standard that everyone ought to apply to.

Second, this argument presupposes that one should always obey the culture in which he lives in. If my culture says that slavery is okay, does it make it so? Slavery was once permitted by the Supreme Court in the United States. However, we all know that slavery is wrong. So what made us overturn that decision? The answer is that there is a higher law than the civil law in which the government ought to apply to. This is what we call the natural law or moral law. Morality is not dependent on the government, but the government is dependent on the morality.

I have always believed there was no explaination for this higher law than God.

Good debating with you guys. I have to run. To Tom Ashbrook… I think it would be nice to get some different opinions on the subject in your show. Seemed somewhat slanted, with not much understanding of conservative positions. It would be nice to hear someone talking about the real moral impasse that exists.

Ok I can’t help replying to Peter about “free will” being nothing more than an epiphenom. Menatl states are physical states–but so what. It can’t be any other way. The idea of “free will” is complex and nuanced and perhaps irresolvable and contradictory–certainly beyond what neuroscience is going to tell us on the subject. Ask yourself this: do you see any difference in the way we react to stimuli as say an ameoba? Perhaps “free will” is something less exotic than a force free from the laws of nature but more than what an amooba does as it oozes around. Alan Watts was found of saying “as free beings we are determined and as determined beings we are free”.

First of all, JSR: will you be my mentor?

Peter: While astute, I don’t think your point about biological determinism is really an answer to JSR’s point about the disconnect between philosophy and biology. Ok, ok, not “biological determinism.” And, ok, ok, not “disconnect.” It just seems to me that philosophy is most useful when it not only takes account of biology, but countervails it.

In contrast to the guest, I don’t think conservatives deserve credit for keeping moral terms front and center in political discourse. While it is true they used the language of morality, they also severely circumscribed the discussion of morality and politics to the point where Tom Ashbrook could make a distinction between political issues that have morality and (presumably) those that don’t.

Politics at its root is about structuring power relations in a society, and disagreements about political issues are, at their root, disagreements about moral values. “Moral issues” are not simply things that the religious right claims they are - god, gays, abortion, and the like. They include the abysmal bankruptcy bill that was passed in the last few years, decisions to underfund the FDA or to deregulate the financial and other industries. They include our decisions about foreign relations and funding schools. One of the interesting things about Obama is that he has tried to reclaim this larger and more fundamental sense of morality in politics. When he talks about the recent storms in the Gulf Coast and urges people to contribute to aid victims (which probably fits with a conventional definition of a moral act) he also reminds people that there are thousands of “quiet storms” all across America - suggesting that these smaller problems that affect one or a few people at a time should be moral issues for us as well and that the purpose of politics is to try to put a morality into action.

It’s time we reclaim the language of morality, of “values” from the so-called “values voters.” The narrow definition of “values” that they push only serves to perpetuate gross inequalities of power, serving those whose moralities say that it is okay for a few to thrive on the backs of the many.

It just seems to me that philosophy is most useful when it not only takes account of biology, but countervails it.

What does it mean to countervail biology? The universe, with its laws, is what it is. You can’t countervail it - you have to function within its framework. This is also true with other areas of philosophy, e.g., metaphysics or logic or epistemology.

We can create artificial universes with their own laws and assumptions as academic exercises, as long was we don’t lose sight of their artificiality. The recent melt-down in the financial industry reveals the peril of that - free-market philosophy was based on the wholly artificial idea that human beings are rational utility optimizers. Recent advances in behavioral economics give the lie to the whole underpinning of free-market efficiency and rationality. Let’s not make the same mistake with morality - we need to understand homo sapiens AS HE IS, not as some idealized version, if we want our moral systems (like our economic systems) to work.

Jack Beatty brought up one of those abstract models that are supposed to be in some way morally relevant. Someone threatens to kill me unless, in effect, I take out a contract on someone else’s life. The only immoral act here is that of those who present me with such a choice. I am not choosing to kill anyone. Someone will be killed no matter what choice I make. Therefore, as far as I am concerned it’s not a moral choice that I am presented with. Acting on behalf of my own self-interest here would not be immoral.

Peter -

“If think the strongest moral system is the one that actually works in achieving what its moral goals are.”

Right, which is why I argued that an over-reliance on a morality argued from scientific hypothesizing isn’t the course to take - cause it won’t work. It is too logical and rational. Too cut and dry. It speaks to the already converted. It can be used to bolster both side’s argument. It won’t achieve it’s moral goals. Better to co-opt the emotions if your going to try and break people’s emotional attachment to one set of beliefs and convert them to a better one. Better to shame them, guilt them, cause them to develop an emotional hatred of Republican ideas, just as the GOP fuels emotional hatred of Democrats ideas.

“Probably the most alarming from a moral standpoint is the growing evidence that conscious “free will” is just an epiphenomenon.”
“What does it mean to countervail biology? The universe, with its laws, is what it is. You can’t countervail it - you have to function within its framework.”

Moral systems are built on the assumption of self-regulation, self-control, self-creating, choosing, making a conscious effort, changing oneself, bettering oneself. Do you really advise building a moral system that, as a starting point, selects certain scientific hypotheses and adapts a hard determinist’s worldview? How do you authentically appeal to people to change themselves? After all, they are determined machines.

In science everything is a hypothesis. Nothing is proven. That is the correct scientific attitude. What may seem true today can easily be refuted, further developed, taken apart and absorbed into more complex and nuanced ideas later. One should approach science with caution and humbleness. Not with an ‘I’ve just been to the mountain and received the commandments’ certaintude. Injudicious.

Most issues in science are far from decided and the scientific community is not of one mind. So, which group of scientists with which ideas will you select in developing your scientically-dependant moral system? Why are other scientists in an opposing school not selected? Does your whole artifice collapse when the next journal article is released next month?

To imply that all new scientific findings lead to hard determinism isn’t true.

Quantum mechanics:

“We know that quantum uncertainty exists in the world and so there have been unpredictable and uncaused events that have broken the causal chain of strict determinism.”

“Chance is closely related to the ideas of uncertainty and indeterminacy. Uncertainty today is best known from Werner Heisenberg’s principle in quantum mechanics. It states that the exact position and momentum of an atomic particle can only be known within certain limits. .. This irreducible randomness in physical processes established the existence of chance and indeterminism in the world.”

Neuroplasticity:

“The mind has the power to act back on the brain…This makes the notion that mind is strictly determined by the movements of atoms and electrons [false].”

Mark -

“Gandhi …as an example, but why not–I would call him a truly compassionate man”

Erick Erikson’s (psychoanalyst) famous biography of Gandhi honored the compassionate side and great works of Gandhi, while revealing his cruel side. For example, using the excuse of religious proscription to be quite harsh and strict with his children. Same dynamic with Republicans and their religious right clothing their nonsense in something supposedly good - religion. I know you don’t want to vilify the other side but at some point it is necessary to look at the dark side of human nature square in the face and at least fully account for it in one’s analysis.

Most issues in science are far from decided and the scientific community is not of one mind. So, which group of scientists with which ideas will you select in developing your scientically-dependant moral system? Why are other scientists in an opposing school not selected? Does your whole artifice collapse when the next journal article is released next month?

I’m not saying that you can build a scientically-dependant moral system. I’m saying that no moral system will work if it’s not based on an accurate understanding of our neurophysiology and sociobiology. Put another way: all moral systems make assumptions about the nature of the underlying human. The more accurate those assumptions are the better the moral system will work.

To imply that all new scientific findings lead to hard determinism isn’t true.

Obviously, but quantum mechanics doesn’t lead to conceptual model of free will, either.

“The mind has the power to act back on the brain…This makes the notion that mind is strictly determined by the movements of atoms and electrons [false].”

This assumes there is such a thing as a “mind” that is distinct from the brain.

I follow this research pretty closely and there have been major strides and startling discoveries in recent years. But just as most Americans couldn’t find places like Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan on a map before 9/11 (and many still probably can’t), most people are totally unaware of the discoveries in neuroscience and their implications. Like quantum mechanics it defies our intuitive sense of how things really are, but after we’ve had another generation of science students and researchers living with these ideas it will start to shake our moral and legal concepts to their very roots.

True Peter and it is fascinating research.

I still don’t know how to solve the problem of the red states.

We should have let the South succeed back when.

“I still don’t know how to solve the problem of the red states. We should have let the South succeed back when.”

Funny that it was the newly formed Republican party that prevented the South from seceding. Now look at them. They are nothing without the South.

On another point, after reading this thread I think not all is lost for the USA. Very impressive discussion. How is it that the US population comes across as narrow minded, self-absorbed and arrogant if you look at it from the outside?

Alex-

Ha! Most Americans are listening to the Howard Stern Show this morning.

We are a select group. Mostly drawn from that so-called educated elite that the GOP derided Obama for being apart of since he - how dare he - studied at the Harvard Law School and worked so phenomenally hard that he was elected to serve as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Graduating magna cum laude.

Way to support education, Republicans!

JSR: Your comment is well taken about Gandhi and I am aware of this criticism and of Erikson’s work. However, Erikson’s critique is not the whole story, and we will always find fault with every person–imperfect as we are–does this mean we discount everyone and/or their good works for their lack of perfection in all aspects of their life?

Mark -

Of course we don’t discount anyone’s positive contribution. We need as many of them as we can get. You referred to Ghandi as a truly compassionate man and I just wanted to flesh out the matter. There is a danger in over-idealizing our idols.

More to the point, the danger of a person wittingly or unwittingly using a belief system (like religion) to sanction their own unsavory acts and vile notions ties in with the discussion here. It’s a familiar human susceptibility that can be seen in a Ghandi and in a Republican pleb.

Erikson’s critique was not the whole story? Perhaps not, but he hardly held an inelaborate view of Ghandi; saw him from many different angles and lavished much praise on him.

The red states. Good people with different notions than I about what should and shouldn’t be? Or vile, narrow-minded people enjoying twisted delusions of superiority and embracing notions of white supremacy and religious supremacy? If we could hear their private conversations, what would we hear?

I come from a strong pedigree of southern Reagan Republicans on my father’s side–so I can tell you a lot on the subject–They are by and large good people. I disagree with a lot of what they have to say, but I also see much good in what they believe–on the good side what they fundamentally believe is that individuals are repsonsible for their actions and that real freedom is a personal journey and is something you earn through your actions. The role of government should be to protect rights but it should be limited–now I know what you are thinking–hypocracy and all that–and I part from their concept of individuality–but I do believe in personality responsibilty and the power of individuals to overcome their environment–and your idea of vile, narrow-minded people is not correct.

JSR: One last thing–it is not that I don’t get frustrated and upset by what I see as wrong in the Right–I hear you–but righteousness on both the left and the right does no good–none. It is just the dark side of the force. And you aren’t going to talk them out of their beliefs with any brilliant irreproachable philosophy of morality–been there done that–if you think you have this philosophy worked out then lay it on us.

Remember we are a democracy–if you want some country where everyone believes and acts within your ideas of right and wrong–then go start your own community or society somewhere–if you are looking for models where everyone dances to the same tune–look to ants–or North Korea.

In the United States if we are going to succeed as a society we will have to learn to get along even though we disagree–and this isn’t a bad thing–the competition of ideas and practices is a good thing. I work on several town boards–sometimes it is discouraging and I think we are doomed–I believe too many people have too little understanding of the interrelatedness of environmental and social systems. But we have learned how to work together even though we have different ideas about policies.

I don’t see any other road out other than engagement–not vilification.

The strength of our convinctions comes from positive engagement in the public realm both with our friends and our opponents. This is the light side of the force.

The cognitive dissonance between Prof. Nieman’s philosophies and her application of them to real world scenarios is frightening and disturbing it’s as if she’s saying ‘let’s all find common ground against people I don’t like’.

The two most appalling instances when this happened are

1. When she talked about the Book of Virtues implying that it was a political book when in fact it seeks to find the sort of common ground she supposedly espouses. Within that statement she also referred to ‘good’ progressive people implying that if you are not progressive you are somehow less of a person.

2. When she referred to the republican convention as primarily trying to divide people. The implication aside which is that the Democrats are somehow trying to unite people,and while even as a Republican I am not proud of the campaign that McCain has run I don’t see how anyone could look at the speeches of Joe Lieberman and John McCain and say that they were being divisive.

If this nonsense is moral clarity I want none of it.

The role of government should be to protect rights but it should be limited–now I know what you are thinking–hypocracy and all that–

FIRST: this is not a spelling flame even though it may seem like one.

I was fascinated by your spelling of hypocrisy (”hypocracy”) in the context of this discussion, because in the Greek, “hypo” means “under” or “below” and “-cracy” means “rule”, just as it does in “democracy”.

Thus your accidentally made-up-word “hypocracy” has an apropos meaning, namely, “rule from below” or “rule from underneath”, which could be a way of saying “ruled by our emotions” or “ruled by our animal instincts”. Fascinating.

“your idea of vile, narrow-minded people is not correct.

We can hope. A few days ago I was in North Carolina to attend a wedding involving the southern branch of my family. Pretty much every southern-gothic horror story you can think of applies to that branch who mainly come from western North Carolina near the Tennessee border.

Because the groom was in the Army it was a military-style wedding and included the “arch of swords”. In this custom, after the couple have said their vows and exchanged rings they walk back from the altar between two rows of soldiers in full dress uniforms holding swords over the aisle forming an arch the couple pass under.

Except that the soldiers at the head of the aisle lower their swords to stop the couple and the soldier behind the bride whacks the bride on her derriere with his sworde and says “Welcome to the Army!”

This is the standard tradition and if you Google it you’ll find thousands of hits - there’s nothing arcane or obscure about it, but most liberal, Obama-voting, Volvo-driving NPR-listeners have never heard of it. And here’s the thing: my wife and I think it’s sexist and demeaning (there’s no equivalent custom for men) but everyone there loved it, and when I followed the links in Google I couldn’t find even one single objection raised by anyone.

I am a terrible speller–getting worse over time–I don’t know if I should curse or bless spell check. There ia a word for these type of made up word formations in speech development–can’t think of it right now, but you are right it is an interesting “word”.

Point taken–I am not trying to defend all behavior as being ok–as if understanding equates with condoning–but what are you going to do–walk up and tell these guys to cut it out?

There is probably an argument that that type of behavior is the mild end of a spectrum with wife abuse at the other end. But it doesn’t mean all these guys are evil, wife-beating monsters.

In part what I am arguing is strategy and tatics–you pick your battles and move forward from commonalities and mutual respect–

This interview embodied everything that’s wrong with America now, and everything that’s wrong with the news media.

First, the “interview” was ridiculous. Tom Ashbrook kept asking the same point of the author, ad nauseum. “Wow…So you’re tough on conservatives [i.e., they're evil and vile], but you’re also tough on liberals [i.e., they don't use the right language].” How about actually CHALLENGING an author’s point for once?!! Or at least raising something new?!! This was lazy work.

Second, people who just enjoy hearing from people who agree with them that the other side is evil might’ve enjoyed this program, but I didn’t. Lost was ANY conception that people can come to conclusions different from us and still be moral. Mr. Beatty’s point about abortions was a good example. He failed to understand that, if you actually believe that abortion kills a human being, then limiting them is not evil, but the height of morality, at least as they see it. I just fail to understand how people can talk about morality in such a self-righteous way.

Lastly, Ms. Neiman’s absolute worship of Obama seemed so absolute as to prevent her from making any criticism of him, or as seeing any of his rhetoric as just that–rhetoric. His abdication of “morality,” as she would define it, on issues of capital punishment and gay rights (I would imagine that she would be pro gay marriage, which Obama is not) are blamed on the Republicans! (i.e., They would attack him on those things, therfore he had to cave.) Please…