You're at the library, between the rows and rows of books, and at one of the study tables you see someone studying. Except he's not. He's actually asleep. Sound asleep. In fact, he's snoring - not too loudly, but every indication is that he's in a very, very deep sleep.
Sitting next to him on the table is $100 in cash. Nobody else can see you, the sleeping person, or the money.
Would you take the money?
I'd bet that for virtually everyone reading this blog post (all six of you) or even anyone who would ever read a blog such as this one, the answer is no. The answer is no whether rich or poor, theist or atheist, male or female. In fact, I'd also bet that taking the money wouldn't even cross most of our minds in the first place. By not taking the money, we're essentially following the "thou shalt not steal" commandment, whether or not we directly subscribe to the religious version of it.
That's important because following "thou shalt not steal" coupled with the commandment about not coveting thy neighbors stuff forms the basis of western society's property rights. Property rights have enabled prosperity on a scale unimaginable when these commandments first evolved. On the other hand, communists threw out these commandments and ushered in an era of misery on a scale also unprecedented in human history.
For society as a whole, I believe it's incredibly important that these commandments are followed in aggregate, most of the time. For society as a whole, it's a rational thing to do. But it's much less clear that it's rational for a given individual.
For theists, at least of the Judeo-Christian heritage, it's perfectly rational not to take it. After all, God is always watching, and come judgment day, stealing $100 is just not worth it.
But for materialists? It's seems quite irrational to leave the money sitting there. Yet they won't take the money either. Why?
It can't be a directly genetic phenomenon. If it was, there wouldn't be a commandment about stealing. After all, there aren't any commandments like "Thou shalt breathe" or "Thou shalt lust after every pretty girl who walks by". If it's a natural behavior (or lack of behavior), God doesn't need to command it. Also, the soviets were able to toss out the commandments regarding stealing and coveting in one fell swoop with a large segment of the population going along with it.
It also can't be inherent respect for the laws of man. I'm sure y'all have exceeded the speed limit purposely and rolled through at least a few stop signs. Perhaps there was a little recreational drug use in college or maybe you pushed the legal limit of drinking while driving. I suspect that most of us who wouldn't dream of stealing the money in the library have broken numerous other laws of man. If the laws of man were written as commandments, they'd go something like "thou shall not speed unless you can get away with it or the penalty if caught isn't too big".
Even the golden rule doesn't provide a good explanation. One could always make the argument that if you're so stupid as to fall asleep with $100 out in the open in public, you would want someone to steal it to teach you a lesson. Besides, following the golden rule itself is irrational for a materialist (though pretending to follow it is not).
My explanation is that people are genetically predisposed to accept the mores of the greater culture even if they don't accept the beliefs. In this case, materialists accept the "thou shalt not steal" commandment even though they don't believe in God. I'm an agnostic who believes that it's extraordinarily unlikely that some supernatural deity has the inclination to track my every move (or any move for that matter) so I fall in the same boat as the materialists for the purpose of this discussion.
So I would leave the money on the table because I'm a stupid, irrational git. Fortunately for society in aggregate, most of us who are not religious are stupid, irrational gits. We have adopted the mores of the society around us even though it is irrational for us to do so given our beliefs.
Here's one interesting point. Our society is prosperous because most of us believe either in a God who has given commandments regarding property (which I think is most likely an irrational belief), or we've irrationally adopted the mores of those who do, or we've somehow otherwise irrationally adopted this set of mores. In any case, our society is prosperous because we are mostly all irrational one way or another. There has to be an irrational premise or conclusion somewhere in our chain of reasoning for there to be a prosperous society. Thank God for irrationality! Maybe I'll adopt that as my new motto!
I'd like to address one objection to the preceding statements immediately. You may argue that it's rational not to steal because if everybody did it, society would be less prosperous. True, but you would still be better off performing riskless thefts while pretending that you never did such things. Therefore, it's still irrational not to take the money in the library if you don't believe in God and the commandments.
So let's say we all became materialists tomorrow. Nobody thinks God's watching them anymore. Nobody thinks that the commandments are being enforced by God. The commandments are now just rules (or "guidelines" to paraphrase Captain Barbados in Pirates of the Caribbean) of man.
I suspect that we would then evolve towards the collectivists view of property rights (i.e. no property rights) and lots of theft. Already in the Netherlands, which is a fairly non-religious society, pretty much anything that isn't actually in your hand or carefully locked up disappears in fairly short order. Bicycle owners are instructed to use two different types of locks, each of which needs to simultaneously lock the bicycle to some stationary object. Even then, with as much bicycling as the Dutch do, you don't see very many nice bicycles.
This is one reason I have qualms about materialists wanting to weaken the religious infrastructure of the United States. I think our prosperity might depend on it. The irrational concept of a God watching us and potentially punishing us come judgment day if we violate His rules serves us well.
Of course the problem remains that many of God's rules are a bit out-of-date. It would be quite helpful if God would repeal the "thou shalt kill infidels" and a variety of other directives that some variants of religion have attributed to God. But we don't need to throw out the bearded baby with the bathwater. We just need to constantly lobby the spokespersons for God in their various religions to have a new vision about God's word. Indeed, for this one example, the spokepersons could just revert to boosting the priority of one of God's other commandments: "Thou shalt not kill."
10 comments:
Bret:
I think you make some assertions that don't stand up particularly well to examination.
Even the golden rule doesn't provide a good explanation. One could always make the argument that if you're so stupid as to fall asleep with $100 out in the open in public, you would want someone to steal it to teach you a lesson. Besides, following the golden rule itself is irrational for a materialist (though pretending to follow it is not).
The GR does provide a good explanation. If I was in that person's position, I would want someone to wake me up and tell me I had left $100 laying out to be whisked away. Therefore, I would wake the person up and alert them to their mistake.
Let's pretend, however, that the GR isn't sufficiently compelling. The risk of getting caught may be small, but it is not zero. Are their unknown surveillance cameras? Is sleep feigned, or less deep than it appears? Are there unobserved people in the stacks? Have others walked by who saw the money, and you, who could act as witnesses later? As a materialist, I well know how difficult it is to completely model all of reality's salient points, particularly on the spur of the moment.
Does the gain of $100 outweigh a non-zero risk of detection?
Depends upon two things: the marginal utility of an extra $100 (for me, exactly zero), and the marginal cost of public shame (for me, extremely high). The shame would not be due to God, but from family and friends.
Clearly, both these factors vary by person. Some value the marginal utility more, or are deterred less by the prospect of shame. Neither of these factors appears much affected by religious belief.
Whenever I read this position, it invariably focuses on some particular material element, as if no other considerations exist. The accusation is invariably that it is "rational" to cheat on my wife, because I'll get gratification, and why should I care what the wife and kids think? That's rational, right?
Well, yes, if all I cared about in life was sex (or money). But except for the pathological, who are beyond the ministrations of religion in any event, all people care about a great many things that act at cross purposes, and almost all of those negative cross purposes exist regardless of religion.
As for your examples of speeding, or rolling a stop sign, the chances of getting caught are low, but non-zero, just like with your hypothetical. However, the attendant shame is also quite low, probably closer to zero than the chances of getting caught.
Do people drive drunk less than 40 years ago because we are more religious, or because both the penalties and the associated shame are much higher?
Also, I think your comparison with Communism is somewhat adrift. Communism, just like any other religion, inspired moral fervor in its adherents. Communists perceive Property rights as the source of evil, and abrogating them required to achieve earthly utopia. That they are completely confused about human nature renders their hypothesis ridiculous is self-evident to any but the true believers, but to say their predations were due to lack of belief in God is to miss the moral pretensions of Communism (as well as those pretensions similarity to much of Christ's teachings, should anyone be paying sufficiently close attention to act on them).
I haven't spent much time in Holland, so I can't speak for the Dutch (although it does leave me with the strong temptation to stake out a lightly locked, and valuable bike, while holding a pellet gun). Britain's degree of religious observance is far lower than ours, and probably on par with the Netherlands.
Strangely, there is far less criminality in the UK than here in the good 'ol USA.
Hey Skipper,
Let's start with where we seem to agree. I wrote "my explanation is that people are genetically predisposed to accept the mores of the greater culture". One mechanism by which mores are translated into behavior is via things like shame (or guilt). Thus, we're in complete agreement that shame from "family and friends" is a good explanation of why you wouldn't take the money. Whether religious or not, you've adopted the mores of society.
We also seem to agree that the non-religious aren't motivated by religious beliefs. Again, what I was trying to say is that most people, religious or non-religious are motivated at this instant by the current mores of the society, not by religious belief.
Guessing from your other writings and comments (not this one), I think you would also agree with me that mores and religious beliefs (if any) evolve over time for a given culture.
Now for more specific responses.
"The GR does provide a good explanation..."
That's a possible explanation, but not the only one. There are other rational perspectives such as my example.
"Let's pretend, however, that the GR isn't sufficiently compelling..."
This is a thought experiment. I could easily fill in details to address each of your concerns for the particular scene I brought forward, but surely you could imagine your own version where the risk is smaller than a meteor destroying life on earth in the next five minutes.
"the marginal utility of an extra $100 (for me, exactly zero)"
Great, please send me $100 dollars. The marginal utility is definitely positive for me and it has no value for you. If your expected income up to the last penny has value but then drops in a step function to 0 for "extra" money, then send me any windfall (for example, a larger tax return than expected), if any. Thanks, your a good friend.
"Neither of these factors appears much affected by religious belief."
Agreed, as I said above, they're affected by adopted mores. Same answer for the everything in the next four paragraphs ("Whenever I read this position ... associated shame are much higher"): mores, guilt, and shame make it rational to restrain ourselves and it's independent of religious beliefs.
Regarding the next paragraph on communism. I think communism is the single most powerful and appealing idea ever formulated. My read of history is that virtually ever developed country except one was on its way to becoming socialist (including Britain, France, etc.) when WWII interrupted the process. That one country was the United States and a significant part of the reason (in my opinion) was the anchor to the mores of the people of the United States provided by Christianity. Communism was a non-Christian proposition.
That's the fundamental point of my post (or what's supposed to be the fundamental point). We act according to mores (because of, I believe, a genetic component). But the mores evolved from beliefs. One type of belief is religious belief. Religious beliefs, being dogma, are the slowest to evolve, especially since they are "enforced" by an omnipresent deity. Because they are the slowest to evolve, they provide an anchor that slows down the evolution of society's mores. While slowing down society's mores in some areas is bad ("thou shalt kill infidels"), in other areas it may be critically important ("thou shalt not steal").
Hey Skipper, you clearly understand the importance of strong property rights for the formation of capital leading to the prosperity that we in the west currently enjoy. However, what percent of the population do you think gets that. I work with lots of intelligent people and shockingly few get it. More of them follow Krugman's edicts. The less educated segments have only a common sense grasp (which ironically matches the data closer than most of my more intelligent friends).
Without religious dogma, I think we'll be socialist so fast it will make your head spin. I can't prove it, by why even take the chance?
Hey Skipper,
BTW, regarding your last comment about criminality in the UK vs. USA, surely you know that comparing small, relatively homogeneous countries with large countries with a wide variety of ethnicities and cultures is fraught with problems.
Bret:
If you can find a society that does not include the concepts of shame (or reciprocity) then I'd love to hear about it. I have not adopted the mores of society, I exhibit the characteristics of humanity.
Certainly people absorb, to a greater or lesser extent, the mores of their society. For example, no matter how much Mr. Judd might prefer to burn witches, and think it divinely directed, he has absorbed enough contemporary US mores to avoid actualizing his preferences. However, since there is so little overlap between American social mores and the Bible, and it is extremely doubtful (as substantiated by my link above) that people rank God's eventual disapproval over shame and other penalties in the here-and-now, I don't find the link between religion and our polity persuasive. American mores reflect a much more pragmatic approach.
Your hypothetical was indeed a thought experiment; however, without stretching for the abstract, there simply is no way to eliminate the possibility of detection.
A better hypothetical, which would serve your purpose just as well is this: You notice your hotel / auto repair / department store bill is $100 less than it should be. Will you point out the error? Or, knowing that even if the merchant subsequently notices you can always plead ignorance, pocket the money?
(Shameless self reference follows) 20 years ago, when people still used Traveler's Checks, I bought some the day before leaving on a trip. When I got home, I discovered the teller had given me one book -- $250 -- to many. I had perfect plausible deniability; who really keeps track of such things? After I returned from my trip, I took the checks back.
Do I deserve congratulations? Heck no. Given a mental makeup over which I have absolutely no control, I had equally little choice in the matter. Free will is a wonderful concept, and one that gets further away the closer the inspection.
Great, please send me $100 dollars. The marginal utility is definitely positive for me and it has no value for you.
You didn't tell me you are Nigerian ;-)
We act according to mores (because of, I believe, a genetic component). But the mores evolved from beliefs.
That sounds a little convoluted. IMHO, what we call mores consist of a very few taboos and sensitivities due to our evolution as social animals. Everything else is the consequence of consensus responses to exigent circumstances.
Without religious dogma, I think we'll be socialist so fast it will make your head spin. I can't prove it, but why even take the chance?
Because the material consequences of socialism have become sufficiently apparent (contra OJ, this is the everlasting benefit of letting Communism have its run). However, unlike Dawkins, I don't see anything to be gained from purging religious dogma, even presuming one could imagine such a thing without overweening government interference, presuming these conditions hold:
1) The society is divided among many sects, and no sect has anything like a plurality
2) Government exhibits no preference towards any sect. Phrases like "under God" or "in God we Trust" are OK. In contrast, even something so trivial as picking which sects may pray on the City Hall steps during National Prayer Day results in a schlamozzle.
3) No sect is immune from criticism or ridicule
I guess this means that, while I don't necessarily agree with antecedent, I don't disagree with your consequent.
BTW, regarding your last comment about criminality in the UK vs. USA, surely you know that comparing small, relatively homogeneous countries with large countries with a wide variety of ethnicities and cultures is fraught with problems.
You are absolutely right -- I stand guilty of a very sloppy comparison. That is the same sort of thing that drives me nuts when people do the same thing with respect to, say, gun violence.
I occurred to me about 3:35 am that I should have used New York ca 1975 in comparison to New York ca 2006.
Hey Skipper wrote: "If you can find a society that does not include the concepts of shame (or reciprocity) then I'd love to hear about it."
I agree that shame is an important modality of control within society and that virtually everybody has the capacity to experience it. I'm not sure if your statement is directly addressing one of my statements because I don't see how any of my statements contradicts it.
By the way, my understand has always been the following from Wikipedia regarding the relationship of shame and guilt in Western Society: "Contemporary Western society uses shame as one modality of control, but its primary dependence rests on guilt..." Are you Asian (or Nigerian? :-) by any chance (where shame is the primary mode)?
HS: "I have not adopted the mores of society, I exhibit the characteristics of humanity."
I'm sure you've heard of the tribes in various South Pacific Islands (heck, you just read Cryptonomicon didn't you?) where the tribes steal from each other and even hunt each other for food? Humanity is capable of a pretty wide range of characteristics, don't you think? Or do you consider such tribes as sub-human, non-human, or pre-human? Or have you been eating people lately?
I laughingly (and lovingly) call folks who believe that the Mores of Western Civilization are characteristics of humanity "Closet Creationists". Obviously you don't think God created man, but nonetheless in one fell sweep western man bubbled up out the primordial ooze, fully formed, fully capable of reason, and fully endowed with inate characteristics that makes western civilization and its attendant prosperity possible. That's not the way it looks to me.
HS: "A better hypothetical..."
I still prefer my hypothetical (or at least think they're much different) because in mine, it takes action to steal, in yours, it takes inaction to do something that we agree is wrong, but is not really stealing (or is stealing-lite?). But fine, if that helps you visualize what I'm trying to say (hopefully it does), then go with it.
HS: "You didn't tell me you are Nigerian"
As the saying goes, on the Internet, everybody's a Nigerian...
HS: "That sounds a little convoluted"
I shoulda said "But at least some of the mores evolved from beliefs..." Equally convoluted, but doesn't exclude the possibility of influence by "exigent circumstances". I'm not sure why it's convoluted - it seems straight forward enough to me:
1. Beliefs influence Mores over long time frames
2. Mores constrain behaviors
3. Behaviors enable prosperity
HS: "Because the material consequences of socialism have become sufficiently apparent..."
I doubt it. Or more accurately, yes for now, but in a few generations, after the horrors of Stalin and Mao and the memories of the poverty of socialistic countries has faded from view, I suspect new socialistic Utopias and other attempts at Heaven on Earth will be rammed down the throats of various segments of the population and cause equal horrors and misery. Socialism is just to appealing a concept to reside in the dustbin of history for any length of time. Fortunately, I'll be dead by the time it resurges (I think).
HS: "I should have used New York ca 1975 in comparison to New York ca 2006..."
Then I'm totally confused. I thought your point was that the British are less religious and crime rates are lower. Is 2006 NY or 1975 NY more or less religious? I would've guessed 1975 NY was less religious and had more crime (I lived in upstate New York in 1975 and NYC was none-to-religious at that time). Is that not true?
Of course, comparing places in different eras is a little tricky as well.
I wouldn't take the $100 because it's a bad habit. Overall behavior is the accumulation of individual acts. A good reason for following principle as much as possible is because it creates habits. Breaking principles, even if there is no possibility of detection, wears down a valuable habit. That's a direct cost of taking the money irrespective of religious belief or detection.
Susan's Husband wrote: "I wouldn't take the $100 because it's a bad habit."
Good point. It's a relief to know that I'm not necessarily a "stupid, irrational git" for not taking the money.
On a more serious note, your assertion is a serious blow to my whole argument. In short, the laws of man plus good habits to avoid running afoul of the laws of man are a sufficient explanation for this particular behavior.
Thanks for the insight. I have to rethink it now.
But still, why is recreational drug use so widespread? The penalties are comparable to those for stealing. It seems to me that far more people used drugs in college than would ever consider stealing things. Why doesn't the habit explanation work for that?
Peter, David:
What is your point about excluding Hispanics?
There are a couple points, not necessarily in priority order.
First and foremost, the Hispanic birthrate is almost certainly strongly related to the recency of immigration. The rate of first generation Hispanics is very high compared to other groups. Follow on generations will almost certainly have fertility rates more closely resembling the group the will most closely come to resemble: White non-Hispanics.
Second, If that assertion is true, then suggestions that France is any more demographically imperiled than the US seem a little strained.
Finally, if I include the Hispanic rate, then the US rate slightly exceeds France's, meaning I wouldn't have been able to use the self deprecating "Sack ray blur" in the title.
And if we are going to play that unpleasant game, how about giving us France's figure for "white non-Muslim lifetime fertility"?
I don't think the game is at all unpleasant. Fertility rates among different groups may very well say valuable things about those groups.
More importantly, though, France prohibits gathering data by ethnic group. I didn't include the information because it simply (despite about an hour of Googling) isn't available.
Bret:
I agree that shame is an important modality of control within society and that virtually everybody has the capacity to experience it. I'm not sure if your statement is directly addressing one of my statements because I don't see how any of my statements contradicts it.
The reason it contradicts your assertion is that if guilt is a common-mode behavior (i.e., exhibited by all societies at all times), then it is far more likely to be a facet of human nature, not the consequence of a belief system. All religion does is put a God-gloss on the cake that was already there.
By the way, my understand has always been the following from Wikipedia regarding the relationship of shame and guilt in Western Society: "Contemporary Western society uses shame as one modality of control, but its primary dependence rests on guilt..."
In taking the meaning of the word "guilt" in this context as the feeling attending a regretted action (in contrast to a legal finding of responsibility), then if there is a distinction between that and "shame", I couldn't put a finger on it; I decided to stick with "shame" because there is less room for alternative meaning ambiguity.
I'm sure you've heard of the tribes in various South Pacific Islands (heck, you just read Cryptonomicon didn't you?) where the tribes steal from each other and even hunt each other for food?
Yes, I have. But that doesn't change my point at all. Organized religions exhibit aspects of tribalism, in that they form exclusionary moral communities: what is immoral behavior with respect to a member of the community is completely moral when directed at someone outside the community. Consult revealed texts for the proper treatment of non-believers and apostates, and how it differs from that accorded to believers.
Similarly with these tribes. I doubt very much that in-group theft and murder is tolerated.
I laughingly (and lovingly) call folks who believe that the Mores of Western Civilization are characteristics of humanity "Closet Creationists".
Please don't include me with those folks. Western Civilization is the antithesis of tribalism, which is almost certainly the default mode for humanity.
And which, BTW, specifically revealed religion reinforces. The Texas GOP in that link, without any sense of irony, attributed to an individual the purported characteristics of a group, in direct contravention of American (and Western Civilization's) emphasis on individual merit. Whether white men in general cannot jump says absolutely nothing about the jumping ability of a specific white man. Thinking exclusively in the former terms is tribalism, focusing on individual merit exclusive of group membership is tribalism's antithesis.
I wouldn't go so far as to suggest we would be better off without religious belief (particularly within the constraints I outlined above), but in many respects, Western Civilization came about either despite, or in reaction to, religion.
HS: "A better hypothetical..."
The reason I like my hypothetical better is because the theft is identical; the acquisition of property by dishonest means is identical in both cases. However, my hypothetical removes shame in the here and now, thereby isolating the decision to only two components: inborn habits (nod to AOG) / tendencies, and whatever restraint belief in God might provide.
I doubt it. Or more accurately, yes for now, but in a few generations ...
As you say, the moral attractiveness of socialism in theory (keeping in mind there is no such thing as a good theory that doesn't work in practice) will never go away. However, the material consequences will not. Countries that try socialism will fail with respect to those that don't. Within the US, relatively socialist states will do the same with respect to the rest, which is as good an argument for thoroughgoing federalism as one is likely to find, IMHO.
Then I'm totally confused. I thought your point was that the British are less religious and crime rates are lower.
My point was that crime rates aren't necessarily related to religious belief. I used a bad, a very, very bad, example.
NYC more directly addresses the point: in thirty years crime has dropped drastically, making the city far more livable. Over that same period, religious belief has, at best, remained constant in the US; it may have even decreased in NYC.
As a consequence of the precautionary principle alone (although I think there are other good reasons), I would not argue for any sort of affirmative promotion of atheism or anti-religionism. That said, I find the arguments for the superiority of religiously derived morality are more self-congratulatory than factual.
SH:
I wouldn't take the $100 because it's a bad habit.
That is a far more direct reason to avoid theft than any other. I would have relied upon that had I only thought of it.
Okay, Susan's Husband definitely skewered the body of my post like a pig on a spit.
Back to the drawing board for me.
Thanks for your input.
Bret:
Apologies for the unintentional (as distinguished, I suppose, from the intentional) nonsense at the top of my previous post. I use a text editor, and hadn't noted that a previous comment was off the top of the window when I did a select all.
Post a Comment