The Ten Commandments and 'Basic Morality'

Working within the topic of morality (and avoiding the drudgery of wading through Sam Harris' assertive treatise) it seemed rather diligent to briefly consider that oft cited paragon of morality, The Ten Commandments. Evangelical Christian fundamentalists have in the past tried to tell me that whatever else I may think of their religion I should be willing to concede that the Decalogue is a good guide to moral behaviour. Sometimes that concession is made by others and it is even claimed that these commandments persist outside of Christianity. I have never accepted that characterisation nor do I see it as accurate.

One means of concession is to cast the commandments as a valid espousal of 'basic morality'. By basic morality I take it one essentially means an unsophisticated acceptance of the points as ethical or the perception that these points are valid without us seeing the need for elaborate justification. To test this we need to look at the content of the commandments by listing them. In Exodus 20:1-17 (NIV used here), God begins by identifying Himself ("I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" - ed: who put them there in the first place?) then announces:


1 - You shall have no gods before me
2 - You shall make no graven images
3 - You shall not take the Lord's name in vain (or hold anyone who does guiltless)
4 - "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy" and not working
5 - Honour your father and your mother
6 - You shall not murder/kill (interpretive variations exist)
7 - You shall not commit adultery
8 - You shall not steal
9 - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
10 - You shall not covet your neighbour’s house/wife/male or female servant/ox/donkey, or "anything that belongs to your neighbour"



Clearly then we do not have ten morally universal laws. It is actually 3 standard moral pronouncements (not murder/kill, not steal, not bear false witness), 3 fair points (honour father and mother, do not commit adultery, do not covet), and 4 contingent points which are only relevant or intelligible within a given religious framework (no other gods, no graven images, do not take the Lord's name in vain, remember the Sabbath day). Of course, it is impossible not to notice that the perceived morality breaks down even internally as wives and human beings are presented as property akin to livestock and houses in the final commandment. As such one can only agree with that one if necessary qualifications are made. Therein lays the issue: once qualifications and changes enter the picture one cannot hold this list to be ‘basic’ or easily accepted.

Where does this leave us? What is positive in the Ten Commandments has no inherent link to religion (ie one could justify those pronouncements without recourse to religious beliefs) and not all of them are valid or necessarily positive. Therefore we cannot say the list represents some kind of basic morality in and of itself.

Due to work load I haven't been able finish my review of Moral Landscape and likely won't have time for this until next week. However, I have now completed the book and stand firm in my assessment that it is highly flawed (perhaps too much so to adequately cover in a short blog post). Nevertheless that review is forthcoming, but in the interim I have another salient observation concerning Sam Harris.

A Brief Outlook on The Moral Landscape

After watching a debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig I decided to examine Harris' The Moral Landscape (2010) to discern whether or not the characterisation of it by Craig was accurate. While I assumed Craig was being his usual distortionist self I was actually wrong in this case. Having made it most of the way through (I find the book rather dense in the 'you never really get anywhere' sense so it's slower going than usual) I certainly believe it merits critical examination. For that reason I will post my examination of it once finished.

By way of lead up I have also been looking at reviews of Moral Landscape. Some of these arrive at similar conclusions to those which I have about the book (mainly negative) and will be addressed as part of the full post. One point I though merited direct attention was a pro-Harris retort from Chris Hallquist [1]. Regarding a comment made by Massimo Pigliucci, Hallquist writes:

"The snark that Harris just doesn’t know any philosophy (“I suggest that Harris would benefit from reading about it” – Massimo Pigliucci) is simply false. Harris did his bachelors in philosophy, and emphasizes in a footnote that he’s read quite a bit of the philosophical literature but just doesn’t think discussing it all would’ve made for a good book."

In the context of scholarship and intellectual debate asserting that you're "read quite a bit" is insufficient. Usually a writer is required to show (that is, evidentially prove) they have a firm grasp on relevant literature. Given Harris' general disdain for philosophy he omits a great deal of said literature that would otherwise be relevant. Even if he wanted to say it was garbage he would still be required to make that case. Therein lays one of the great issues of the book: it is assertive rather than evidentiary. Not very scientific. . .

If we actually look to Pigliucci's review we see that the above quote has been taken out of context. In context, Pigliucci writes:

"So, how do we ground moral reasoning? This is the province of a whole area of inquiry known as metaethics, and I suggest that Harris would benefit from reading about it." [2]

He isn't talking about philosophy in general but a specifically relevant field within it. Harris largely shows only an awareness of the 'big names' of philosophy which would be the expected extent of a bachelors degree in philosophy. Much more would be expected if someone were to be granted status as an authority or relevant voice on a topic. Since Harris speaks of 'moral experts' he clearly possesses the concept of expertise but falls short of justifying his status in that regard. Also, I can't help but wonder how a man with no qualifications beside said BA came to be a PhD candidate in neuroscience.

Further discussion shall need to wait until a future post.

1 http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/01/11/whats-wrong-with-sam-harris-the-moral-landscape-review/
2 http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/about-sam-harris-claim-that-science-can.html