Friday, October 26, 2007

Lost and Found

An atheist's dilemma.

While running late for work this morning I found a set of keys at the train station. They were left on a bench at the platform. It appeared the keys were for a rental car. The key-chain had the rental company's logo on one side and some numbered codes on the other which could no doubt identify the car. I wanted to get the keys to their rightful owner. Personally, I would hate to lose something on the train and never get it back. However, I was torn. I could take the keys to a station employee BUT, I also knew my train was coming very soon. I could bet with a high degree of certainty that if I took the time to find a station employee I would miss the next train. I made a decision. I went back to the station entrance and handed the keys to the station manager. As I rushed back to the platform I could hear my train arriving and then leaving. My little good deed for the day set me back 10 minutes. Normally not a big deal but I was late as it was.

Why would I, a self identified atheist, do a favor that couldn't possibly be reciprocated, and would certainly have a negative impact on me? For me it was (almost) simple. I firmly believe in the Golden Rule. "Treat others the way you want to be treated." I try to live my life based on this principal. I'll be honest, it sucked to keep it today. But, I truly believe in this rule so in the end I chose to stick to it. I find these are words to live by.

The rest is commentary.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry Mister Fancy-Pants Atheist Schmatheist

In Judaism it's more what you do than the kavana.

Mitoch SheLo Lishma etc.

Not only do you act orthodox - you are orthodox.

Much more so than the others described on your blogs - eg the hareidim doing their version of a Rosa Parks passion play.

If they took off their shtreimels, had a ham and cheese sandwich on Yom Kippur and learned a little bein Adam L'Chavero they would be better Jews than they are now!

jewish philosopher said...

Generally atheists believe in the concept of cultural moral relativism. This means that since most people in your society would have returned the keys, you did too. If you lived in a society which believed in penalizing careless people, you would have thrown the keys in the nearest garbage can.

This is not far fetched. Darwin, for example, was a racist, although were he alive today I guarantee he would not be.

The catastrophe occurs only when atheists are themselves in control of society. In that case, they have no moral compass and tend to murder and steal at will.

As a Jew, I am a moral absolutist. You may not agree with my morals, but at least I am consistent.

Anonymous said...

Why should you believe in the Golden Rule? Who obligates you to it. Just because it looks nice? That doesn't make it a real rule.

Lubab No More said...

Dr. Dave,

> Sorry Mister Fancy-Pants Atheist Schmatheist... Not only do you act orthodox - you are orthodox.

Your comment suggests that to be irreligious one has act against every principle in Judaism. If I "do not kill" does that make me orthodox too? And what's with the fancy-pants line?

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the fancy pants part. My dad used to say that to me when I questioned Judaism.

Hillel was an old time Orthodox Rabbi. (Shammai didn't like the way he refused the hareidi chumras so maybe Hillel was MO.)

Remember the Non-Jew who wanted to learn torah on one leg. A version of the golden rule was given and the rest is commentary. So you do follow the orthodox essence of Judaism.

And unless you are suicidal, don't kill would follow from the golden rule.

Orthoprax said...

This had nothing to do with it?

Deut 22:

"1Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them. Thou shalt in any case bring them back unto thy brother...3In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment and with all lost things of thy brother's, which he hath lost and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise; thou mayest not hide thyself."

Granted, the golden rule has it's points, but you have to appreciate the moral imperative driven in the language of the Torah. You may not hide yourself.

Even while you were thinking 'golden rule' - I suspect you had that language reverberating in your head.

Lubab No More said...

Orthoprax,

I can say with complete certainty that in no way did the thought of an ox or sheep entered my mind. :)

It would be impossible for me to make a complete separation from every Jewish concept I've learned. And there is no reason to. Like many philosophies, Judaism has created many useful ideas. I don't feel the need to reject them just because I disagree with the alleged source.

With the Golden Rule it is interesting to note that it appears in many Eastern and Western religions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Anonymous said...

But it's not without commentary. Also what makes it that you follow it? Are you obligated?

Anonymous said...

Our society is what we make it. If you do something to better it, it will also be better to you. I have found that usually when you do something nice for others, somehow that comes back to you. Avi

Anonymous said...

> You may not agree with my morals, but at least I am consistent.

So was Hitler. So was Stalin. So was Mao Tse Tung. So was Khmelnitsky.

Anonymous said...

The problem is not the commentary!!

The problem is forgetting the Ikar - the main point and only concentrating on the commentary.

Dressing like Polish peasants of the 1700s is fine as long as you are concentrating on what is hateful to you do not do to another!!

Nowhere does it say numerous men can lay hands on a woman because they don't like where she is sitting!!

Much of orthodoxy has become like young deadheads. They wear the tie dye but have no clue as to what the summer of 67 was about. They are divorced from the concepts of peace and love or v'ohavta l'raecha and therefore only follow the forms of bead bracelets or red bindles, tie dye and kapotehs.

Worrying if the cows for my cholov yisroel had daf yomi shiurim or tanya shiurim piped in while the Jew flipped the switch on the automatic milking machine is not as important as worrying if that Jew is able to support his family.

When Hillel was asked which leg of the Torah - bein adam l'makom or bein adam l'chavero - was the essential he answered Do not do hateful things to your fellow man.

Wearing a hat doesn't make you frum (well maybe a nice Borsalino).

There is no greater chilul hashem than disrespecting his creatures.

Returning the lost item makes you more frum than jumping into the mikva and saying tehillim. Just because a bunch of morons tell you that they are frum and you are not, does not make it so. Read the Torah, Nach and Gemara and see what is really prized in Judaism.

The rest is commentary and go learn the commentary but don't forget the main message.

C. L. Hanson said...

Would you be interested in having this post included in the Humanist Symposium?

DrJ said...

"As a Jew, I am a moral absolutist. You may not agree with my morals, but at least I am consistent."

"Why should you believe in the Golden Rule? Who obligates you to it. Just because it looks nice? That doesn't make it a real rule."

Ladies and gentlemen, within these quotes lie the most common fallacy in fundamentalist religious thinking.

Any serious student of Jewish history and halachah knows that Jewish law and morality has shifted over time. This is true for all religions. Even for the ultra-orthodox morality and law is not absolutist but evolved over time (albeit more slowly than general society), given societal pressures. Their morality is a function of the society with which they identify. Yes, it is anchored in an ancient tradition through a process, but it definitely shifts. Think about attitudes about women, relations with non-Jews, slavery, economics, sacrifice, etc. To assert that Jewish ethics is absolute is completely ridiculous. A good book about this topic is "T'murot B'sadeh Hahalach", by Akiva Sternberg (in Hebrew).

As far as the God part, I would posit that most religious people observe their ethical norms because of the societal structure that they live in, not because of God, since clearly they have to determine what God wants of them through man's interpretation ("an eye for an eye", etc). Do not kill? It depends who is doing the killing and the being killed!!Would a Beit Din now burn a prostitute?

This "intepretation" changes due to societal pressures and circumstances.

Just like American culture is a function of American history, laws, norms and societal pressure, Judaism started as the ethical and legal system of ancient Israel, and bears little resemblance to modern Judaism (even though many ultraorthodox like to believe that they are observing Judaism like they did during the Temple era)

IMHO, morality is a man-made construct to make society more livable, and is part of our emotional makeup. Religion then adds holiness to it and gives it metaphysical meaning. This perhaps strengthens it but also makes it resist the inevitable adaptation and change. Maybe for the better but who knows?

Lubab No More said...

C. L. Hanson,
Sure. That would be great.
Let me know if you need anything else from me.

LubabNoMore@gmail.com

Baconeater said...

A chimpanzee would probably look for the keys owners too and try to give it back to them.
We evolved the concept of a social contract.

Anonymous said...

A social contract can be very limited. If sides aren't taken one over the other peace reigns. The concept of morality we have inately. The details are lacking. Whatever the qualities of a chimpanzee they are bound to them. We by contrast do as we please within whatever influences. Societies develop rules but individuals still choose.
An interesting article is this http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6383

Orthoprax said...

"We evolved the concept of a social contract."

Even if true, we also evolved the concept of doing violence to people who piss us off. Why should I follow one evolved urge over the other?

Why indeed, should I allow myself to be determined solely by biology?

DrJ said...

"Even if true, we also evolved the concept of doing violence to people who piss us off. Why should I follow one evolved urge over the other?

Why indeed, should I allow myself to be determined solely by biology?"

Religious morality definitely seems to add to morality beyond social contract, something worthwhile, but you don't need god for it.

Slavery-- did religion impede or assist in its abolishment? One could make a good argument that it was abolished in spite of religion

Jonathan Haidt's article on religious morality addresses this issue quite elagantly (see http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html)

BTW, my previous comments about JP's morality are not personal but refer to his belief system. I don't expect to change his mind, but rather to expose the inconsistencies and fallacies for other questioning readers and LNM

jewish philosopher said...

I am afraid I would have to dispute the assertion that Jewish morality and ethics have evolved over time. I don't believe that my morality and ethics are any different than those of Moses - whether regarding my attitude about women, slavery, etc.

Certain Jewish practices have changed due to necessity over time - for example, I am at the moment about to go visit the local synagogue rather the Temple in Jerusalem.

To say otherwise is simply a typical atheistic trick to equate Jews to everyone else. It is baseless.

Anonymous said...

I think you are caught in a trap (shared by most Americans) that once god is out of the picture, morality goes out the window.

For a different perspective, you might try reading Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil or check out some Buddhist stuff. Buddhists don't believe in god but still have an ethical system. I pointedly am not saying that I think that Eastern philosophy is the way to go or somehow "better". Just that it offers a different perspective and can make you think of ways out of the "god or bust" morality.

Anonymous said...

"Orthoprax said...
"We evolved the concept of a social contract."

Even if true, we also evolved the concept of doing violence to people who piss us off. Why should I follow one evolved urge over the other?

Why indeed, should I allow myself to be determined solely by biology?"

Traditionally natural selection is used to explain aggressive behavior and indeed it fits better with it. The question then becomes why should one behavior that we happen to like in Western Society be considered morality but the aggressive one no, if both are blamed on natural selection? The morality in natural selection argument is weak to begin with. Would we really be willing to say that all you do for morality is see what natural selection produced? Other evolutionary scientists are not engaged in morality origins research and come up with evolutionary reasons for behavior we don't care for like teen unwed pregnancy. If natural selection determines morality what could be objectionable? What is apparent is that it is in reverse people are seeing what they are considering moral and it suspiciously resembles in broad outline their culture’s norms and then tracing it to evolution and neglecting contrary behavior as also then from natural selection. We don't entrust our morality to science. Hence morality is outside of science. Only the concept of it is innate not the details.

Anonymous said...

"Slavery-- did religion impede or assist in its abolishment? One could make a good argument that it was abolished in spite of religion"

To the contrary it was abolished due to the force of arguments for freedom, however aided by lack of conditions for slavery always being usefull. The Bible while tolerating slavery makes it clear that a slave is a person with feelings and that underlying attitude caused the undermining of the institution enmasse in only the West because of the Bible. Only when the West took over the World did slavery become as much abolished as it did.

Anonymous said...

"I think you are caught in a trap (shared by most Americans) that once god is out of the picture, morality goes out the window.

For a different perspective, you might try reading Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil or check out some Buddhist stuff. Buddhists don't believe in god but still have an ethical system."

But Buddhism believes in an ethical system that exists "out there." This is in contrast to popular atheism. The lack of universal Buddhist belief in G-d is irrelevant to the argument. It's not the same type of atheism.

Orthoprax said...

drj,

"Religious morality definitely seems to add to morality beyond social contract, something worthwhile, but you don't need god for it."

Not morality as some revealed form of moral commands, but if God is the creator of everything, then morality would be included, no?

The morality-from-evolution argument is a just-so story that is not supported by the evidence to the degree which we understand moral requirements and gives no authority to then require moral behavior from people. Because _even_ if it is true, it would then be smarter to counter our evolved biases and try to cheat the system.

Some atheists shoot themselves in the foot when they give that argument when next time they are full of moral indignation at some religious concept. How can they pretend to hold some moral high ground which has no foundations?

C. L. Hanson said...

Cool. You don't need to do anything in particular. I'll just make a note of the address of this post and include it in the Humanist Symposium that I'll be hosting on my blog in one week.

Anonymous said...

>>Why should you believe in the Golden Rule? Who obligates you to it. Just because it looks nice? That doesn't make it a real rule.

Agreed. Without an objective universal truth, why is the golden rule any more right than a nation's genocide of another nation for its own purposes? Who says that morality exists without an objective universal truth? Is the golden rule prefered because there is an implication, perhaps, that you will receive in turn what you give? Who guarantees this promise and can it be proven to be true any more than a religious belief?
If there is no God or religious moral obligation what defines morals as anyting more than a social convention to insure a society's running smoothly?

DT

DTclarinet said...

Thought provoking post followed by vigorous and interesting series of comments.

As an atheist I am motivated to write a bit about where the "golden rule" comes form and where it might go if we lived a thousand years without consulting a religious text.

Shall we teach basic morality in schools? Should there exist some atheistic text regarding how to distinguish good from bad behavior?

Did "natural" human morals seeped into secular culture via religious structures now in existence?

Lynet said...

Generally atheists believe in the concept of cultural moral relativism.

Actually, a lot of us are utilitarians of one form or another. Certainly I am. I'm aware that morality only exists in the human mind, but given that love and happiness and everything else that makes life worth living also only exist in the human mind, I don't consider that to be a reason not to care about it.

The catastrophe occurs only when atheists are themselves in control of society. In that case, they have no moral compass and tend to murder and steal at will.

Using communists as an example of what, say, secular humanists would do if they were in power is entirely unreasonable. I have no hesitation in saying that I couldn't lose my moral compass if I tried. Your slur on what I, my mother, my father, my sisters, and many of my friends would be likely to do if in power is both offensive and unjustified.