It should be easy to see that fraud, theft, murder and assault are harmful to both the individual in a group and to the group at large. It should also be easy to see that empathy would be a component to understanding that harm done to an individual in a group is also harmful to the group at large. Individuals within the group at large could empathize with the harm done to an individual within the group.
Other studies demonstrate that individuals initially only extend empathy to member of their own group (family, extended family, group, tribe, nation, etc.) However, as individuals become more familiarized to members of disparate group, then empathic tendencies extend beyond members of the ‘home’ group to the familiarized group. This tendency would allow for the growth of a small group, such as a family, to a larger group such as a tribe.
“When we witness what happens to others, we don’t just activate the visual cortex like we thought some decades ago,” said Christian Keysers of the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience in Amsterdam. “We also activate our own actions as if we’d be acting in similar ways. We activate our own emotions and sensations as if we felt the same. Very rapidly, we got this unifying notion that when you witness the states of others you replicate these states in yourself as if you were in their shoes, which is why we call these activities ‘vicarious states,’” Keysers said.
Studies have suggested that this ability to mentalize the experiences of others so vividly can lead us to take prosocial steps to reduce their pain. Referring to Dr. Meade’s observation about the healed femur and Dr. Valkai’s tale of the toothless homo erectus ‘elder’; both individuals needed care-givers to survive for any length of time. Both indicate that that care-giving has delivered over a long period of time; time enough for the femur to heal and for the gums to heal over after losing teeth. Such care-giving must surely have been the result of empathy.
Studies of the behavior of social mammals of all kinds and stripes indicate that there are codes of behavior within such groups. Indeed, such groups of wolves, bonobos, whales, cats, guinea pigs and rats show a level of empathy and a sense of morality (i.e. accepted social behavior).
It is internalized laws and regulations of behavior which allow mammals to live together. It is the presence of laws and regulations which are the foundation of human civilization, as well. It should be clear that laws, regulations and codes of behavior are the basis of society and civilization without which societal structures of mammalian groups could not exist, perpetuate and thrive.
It has been inferred that our moral code – genetically sourced - didn’t need to be written down or chiseled into rock; that it preceded writing and language. Law, on the other hand, requires just that. It might be said that law is the codification of a moral code. The governing class; king or congress, prince or parliament must need refer to a written text if law is to be enforced. For a common moral order to be maintained in groups larger than familial or tribal communities, such as kingdoms and nations, laws are needed.
Hammurabi, the Babylonian king, is known as the one who codified the laws of his kingdom. Legend erroneously indicated that he was the first to do so. However, the Code of Hammurabi was an adaptation of earlier Sumerian codes, such as the Code of King Ur-Nammu of Sumer, the earliest known civilization (c. 4500 – c. 1900 BCE) and the oldest known law code surviving today. It was written on tablets, in the Sumerian language (c. 2100–2050 BCE), long before the Mosaic Law was handed down in the Sinai.
The Egyptian city of Memphis (founded about 2925 BCE) was the first capital of ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptians worshipped the goddess, Ma’at, wife of Thoth, the god of Wisdom. Ma’at embodied the principles of law, order, justice and balance. To maintain harmony of the communities, truth, balance, order, harmony, law, morality, and justice ancient Egyptians observed the 42 Ideals of Ma’at. Many of them are reiterated in the Mosaic law; (e.g. I have not committed adultery. I have not uttered lies.) All 42 ‘commandments’ are worded as pledges or confessions.
This reference would seem to amplify the notion that laws are bequeathed to humanity from on high. Such was not the intention, here. The intention was to illustrate that deities long known to be forgotten, debunked and discarded have been claimed as the law-givers. One imagines that such attribution might have provided a sense of legitimacy and mystique for the ancient Egyptians or Babylonians.
Imagine the Pharaoh of Egypt and his bureaucrats ruling without rules. Collecting taxes without tax laws. Building immense structures such as pyramids, temples, dams and palaces without rules, regulations and codes of behavior – without a moral grounding. As a matter of fact, here is an article on the 42 Laws of Ancient Egypt; the ‘42 Negative Confessions of Ma’at’ code of law which preceded the Ten Commandments;
https://www.perankhgroup.com/commandments.htm
The notion that it is the tablets which Moses brought down the mountain (the Ten Commandments) upon which our morality derives is preposterous. In fact, The Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses in the Torah contain numerous similarities which is not surprising as the Hebrews were governed by the Babylonians.
Must it be stated that none of the aforementioned civilization (Egypt, Sumer, Assyria, et al.) worshipped, YHWH, the god of the Israelites?
Moreover, are apologists for the Bible claiming that the Israelites had no standing injunctions against theft, murder or lying before they fictionally escaped slavery in Egypt? What, then, were the ‘commandments’ based on? Are the apologists further claiming that the empires of Sumer, Assyria, Egypt, China and Sheba had no law and no moral codes of behavior before Moses? Asinine. Particularly given that the god of Moses was so stridently opinionated about eating shellfish, performing circumcision and wearing mixed fabrics while warranting slavery, commanding genocide and establishing an oppressive patriarchy which denied civil and human rights of women.
It would also infer that all of the other civilizations established around the world which were not privileged to have Mosaic law were chaotic, hot messes of debauchery, murder and theft. This is absurd on its face. Clearly, any group of humans would be bound by a code of behavior that was beneficial to the sustainability of the group.
This is not to say that moral codes are immutable. Acceptable social behavior changes with the times. Slavery was an acceptable condition until it wasn’t acceptable anymore. Sexual harassment, the subjugation of women and child labor are all conditions which have rightfully become unacceptable; but not because of heavenly decree or godly fiat but by a shift in the moral sensibility of the general populace.
Perhaps, it is the supposed theistic definition of morality that is the stumbling block. Perhaps what is meant by morality to the theist is the demeanor of the penitent; the attitude that one is a ‘lost soul’, corrupted and redeemable only by the grace of their specific ‘god’. If the theist considers all people incorrigible and woefully venal, the inheritor of original sin and the curse of Adam, the mythological first man, then one might concede the point as special pleading within the specialized, liturgical sense of the common vernacular.
If such is the case, then there can be no rational counter-argument. It would be much the same as if one were to state that they were experiencing hunger to another, godly one, who only understood the simple word in the context of ‘hunger for god’. One could imagine that the first one would not expect an offer of food from the second one. Rather the hungry one would be lead in pious prayer by the godly one. Empathy would still play a part but the suffering of the hungry one would be seen only through the ‘god’ lens.
This discussion of morality has by no means been exhaustive. It was never meant to be. The intention was to dispel the notion that a moral code is reliant on the dictums of a deity. If that notion hasn’t been quite dispelled perhaps this discussion has defused it somewhat by proposing the contention that biology and sociology in populations are the sources of moral codes rather than their being the pronouncements of gods and goddesses.
As for modern law-giving, the American Constitution, was written by humans without input from gods or goddesses; its legitimacy is accepted without deific source or underpinning. The renowned French mathematician, Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace, was asked to explain planetary mechanics to the Emperor Napoleon. When Laplace had concluded his presentation, Buonaparte observed that he’d left no room for god in his explanation. Laplace reportedly replied, ‘There is no need of god’.
No comments:
Post a Comment