dear david f,

>>In Australia I might hide an asylum seeker.<<

So would I - I mean in Europe where I live now - so would e.g. the Pope, see his talk in Lampedusa. This is because we all have an inbuilt sense of morals; Catholics call it the “natural law” prescribed by God through evolution (atheists leave out the “prescribed by God” part, fundamentalists the “through evolution” part).

However, the problem is not so much moral - hide, this or that particular asylum seeker - but practical, on TWO levels:

How can you safely tell who is an asylum seeker and who, coming from Africa or Middle East, would simply like to live in Europe under conditions similar to those under which an average European lives, or even with some sinister intentions (e.g. spreading Sharia law).

On the second level, even if we ignore the problem of differentiating between asylum seekers and economic immigrants, this is a problem of NUMBERS, not so much of MORALS: I can feed permanently one hungry person, maybe a couple but not thousands of them. For a continent - Europe or Australia - the problem is similar, only the alternative numbers are much higher

David, please don't misrepresent me, it diminishes you. I also wish you'd stop begging the question of how you think your sense of morality has been derived. Would you have the same sense of morality of you were a Muslim living in Australia? How do you think you might be different in the terms you have described? What if you were Chinese living in Shenzhen under the Song? Russian living in the USSR as it was? An ancient Athenian? A French revolutionary? An illiterate, poverty-stricken young person in the outer fringes of one of our major cities?

In other words, how much of what you consider your morality is innate, as you seem to be implying, and how much is learnt through experience and acculturation?

AJ, how is a secular framework superior? What are the outcomes that it can provide that a religious one can't? Why is it less likely to lead to abuse through colonisation of the authority structures by vested interests? What is the essential difference in principal between a secular and a religious model? I'm interested in those questions, not trying to score points. Care to have a go?

George, thanks for your usual considered and thoughtful contribution. The link you provided is very interesting and I'll have to read it properly. The Chinese, with their adoption of Confucianism and rejection of religion as the basis for State authority way back in the 13th century sought a secularised formalisation of morality, which has been remarkably successful, but it is limited in its ability to resolve moral dilemmas beyond Kohlberg's 4th stage. It is that stage which is most conducive to a highly regulated state authority. It's an ideology of bureaucratism and we are heading down the same path. Managerialism is the most recent form of the same thing and the role of individual moral decision-making is even smaller.

I think we all do have some innate sense of morality derived from our eusocial nature as a species, but it can only be fully realised through epigenetic factors like education, culture, etc. In the right conditions people can achieve Kohlberg's stage 6, but in most cases stage 4 is as far as they will get. It's interesting too that Gilligan found that there is a gendered disparity in the way the Kohlberg scale plays out, with women tending to top out at stage 4 in much higher proportions than men. This tends to underscore the fact that in our eusocial division of labour, women are the protectees. Their innate morality is served by a strong social fabric, while the male role as protector demands that some ability to reason out the best way to achieve that protection is required, at least of some men.

It's not that women or that men who are at stage 3 or 4 are morally inferior, they are simply reflecting the needs of the group from within their social role.

There is some work being done on this. Academia.edu has some great papers on sociobiology. Look up "Some Potential Contributions of sociobiology to Moral Psychology and Moral Education" by Changwoo Jeong and Hye Min Han, which is directly applicable.

This piece is also interesting
http://www.frontiersin.org/Human_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00022/full. It's about some of the neuroscience aspects of social interaction, which is what morality is all about.

Some of Peter Singer's stuff on ethics is also very interesting, especially because he deliberately often steps outside morality to shine a light back in.

Antiseptic,

>> The Chinese, with their adoption of Confucianism and rejection of religion as the basis for State authority … in the 13th century sought a secularised formalisation of morality, … it is limited in its ability to resolve moral dilemmas beyond Kohlberg's 4th stage.<<

I agree in principle, although Confucianism was only one of three “religions” in China. Apparently, also Buddhists and Taoists had some concepts of moraliy.

Quotes from the book:

“(D)espite the fact that the Confucian bureaucracy that ruled China for so many centuries stressed the secular, philosophical character of Confucianism, even a cursory examination of Popular Confucianism reveals that Confucius founded a religion.” (p. 269)

“(Buddhism) complemented Confucianism by adding a spiritual dimension to its focus on the state and society, and it fit so well with fundamental Taoism that during the Han Dynasty, Buddhism was regarded as a form of Taoism. … The privileged position of Buddhism was enhanced when in 581 Yangchien reunited the North and the South … The court remained generously favorable to Buddhism during the first two centuries of the T’ang Dynasty (618-907) as well. But opposition slowly grew.” (p. 277)

“Confucian establishement … found many Buddhist teachings repugnant. … Confucians rejected the quest for purely individual salvation…as narrow-minded and selfish. … The Confucian elite branded the monastic life as ‘immoral and parasitical’. … (E)fforts by Confucian byrocrats to control Buddhism began in the eighth century as a number of regulations were imposed. … Eventually both (Buddhims and Neo-Taoism) lived on, primarily as major features of of the prevailing Fold Religion.” (p. 278)

And a quote unrelated to your last post:

“It is quite unnecessary to doubt Muhammad’s sincerity to conclude that the faith revealed in the Qur’an, having originated centuries after the other great monotheisms, is morally and theologically regressive. … But why would God have sent a regressive message to Arab tribes that were in the process of converting to Judaism and Christianity? … (O)f course it is merely my judgement, upon which matters of faith and taste inevitably intrude. …(and) based on the assumption that God exists. (p.394)

Instructions to Muslims about Unbelievers

Koran 9:123: “O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the pious.”

Koran 9:73 Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their Home: an evil fate.

Koran 8:39: “And fight them until there is no more disbelief in Islam and the religion will all be for Allâh Alone...”

Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them

Sura (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Sura (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye knoweth not."

Sura (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"

Koran 70:39 We have created the unbelievers out of base matters.

Dear Antiseptic,

In saying I am diminished you resort to insult rather than being civil. Stop that or our discussion is over.

When I was a child I heard the story of Abraham and Isaac. It bothered me greatly. I asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice from God telling him to sacrifice me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. I felt secure with my father but pondered on that story. A bit later I told my mother I didn’t believe in God, and she was very upset. I have read the Bible as a child and as an adult and the lessons in that story are repeated in many other places. The Bible teaches obedience, faith and submission to authority as virtues. I decided they were really vices.

I decided that because of my schooling in American history, my family background, and my surroundings. In the Revolutionary War we revolted against King George III to establish our country. That was not only questioning authority. That was violently rejecting it. My parents lived in Syracuse, NY, and my grandparents lived in Lake Placid, NY. There were traces of the Civil War and the antebellum period in both places. In Syracuse there is the Jerry Rescue building where aroused Syracusans rescued a slave named Jerry from the custody of federal agents who were going to return him to his owner. Near my grandparents' house was the farm of John Brown. My grandparents revered him, and we frequently visited his grave. He was hanged after the failure of the slave revolt he attempted to start in Harper’s Ferry, and his body was brought to the farm after his execution.

I was a soldier in WW2 and heard how many who participated in atrocities claimed they were only following orders. That was an example of the vices of obedience, faith and submission to authority. I regret that our crimes were ignored.

I try to be honest, caring, kind and considerate because that was the example my grandparents, not my parents, set for me.