Conflat-a-palooza (polyamory edition)

Brian Pellott's review of a recent YouGov survey is interesting but very misleading. As with any survey, the wording is very important. Questions can be leading and biased. The results are only as accurate as the surveys construction. Unfortunately, none of the links in Pellott's "Most non-religious Americans condone polyamory, new survey finds" lead to the actual survey. I also could not find a copy on my own so I do not know how the questions were worded. What I can tell from his review is that within his own mind he has conflated a variety of interrelated but separate aspects of the issue being surveyed. He mixes together morality, ethics, criminality, personal views, and public policies among various others.

The conclusion that:
"25 percent consider polyamory, which YouGov defines as the practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the consent of all people involved, morally acceptable.
14 percent consider polygamy, the marriage of more than two partners, morally acceptable."
May or may not actually reflect people's opinions since I can't analyze the questions they answered.

All I can really do is use my personal views to demonstrate these conflations. Personally, I do find polyamory immoral but not necessarily unethical and certainly not criminal. I find it hard to believe that more than two people can be as devoted to each other as a couple. I could be wrong but if I'm not than one or more involved in such a poly-amorous relationship would be, in a manner of speaking, second-class. I firmly believe that all should be equal partners. Claiming to love someone and then treating them as less important than yourself or another I find dishonest and potentially harmful.

With that pointed out I would add that this is not automatically unethical. The reference to "consent" in the conclusion is essential for my accepting such a relationship as ethical. If each adult involved understands and accepts the relationship they are entering into I see no reason why I should object. When it comes down to it, other people's romantic relationships (assuming they are consenting adults) should not be any of my business. It is a private matter. The government should also not be prohibiting or criminalizing it. This, however, does not lead to the notion of condoning it. I also don't think it should be given the same legal status as a marriage.

Basically, I personally disapprove of the idea of polyamory but see no legitimate reason for it to be either officially condemned or condone through public policy/government intervention. I wonder how many answering the survey answered the way they did because they also did not wish to outright condemn the choices other adults have made for themselves. I can easily see how I might have answered a survey in a way that would skew towards the false conclusion that I find polyamory "morally acceptable".

Does religion make us moral?

The question pops up far more often then it ought to. Recently, the somewhat science challenged Science on Religion blog devoted a post to the question. The answer is both simple and more complex than most people seem to realize. The simple answer is NO. Religion, in and of itself, does not make people moral. That is not to say that religion does not indirectly contribute to the development of morals. It contributes in the same way it contributes to an individual's happiness (another foolish supposition that gets tirelessly repeated). It is a side-effect of religion that allows for morals (and happiness) to develop. That side-effect would be more accurately labeled "social interaction."

Humans are social animals. We need interaction with one another. Virtually every study that has been conducted on religion's impact on society has discovered the same thing. Social interaction within a church is the greatest factor. The level and quality of interaction within a specific religious group says far more than the the doctrines, rites and rituals, or structure in terms of whether the individuals find their "faith" valuable. There are also ample reasons to believe that it is this interaction that informs individual morality within religious groups and even correlates with levels of contentment and happiness.

Religion does not make people moral. Social awareness and interaction helps guide individual morals.

Monotheism and Morality

I not only would disagree that religion is the best source of morality I would go so far as to say it is not a source of morality at all. I do not believe that people actually get their values and ethics from religion. Theists may believe that they do but if you examine what each religion's doctrines and scriptures pass off as moral lessons it becomes clear that they can not be where individual believers are actually getting their morals. There is a huge disconnect even among the more fundamentalist theists. All believers interpret and pick and choose what they accept and apply.

In regard to monotheism I do not even accept that it is possible to gain morals from faith. I see monotheism as being amoral by its nature. I would emphasize that is amoral not immoral. I am in no way implying that monotheists lack morals, they do not. Most monotheists I know have excellent values and ethics. Despite what they themselves see as the source I would argue that it is not from their faith.

As I see it, to have morality requires two main components; knowledge of right and wrong and the ability to act on that knowledge. Monotheism fails on both counts. God as portrayed in scriptures is a hideous and quite hypocritical monster. The more abstract version of the God concept is too amorphous to be of any practical use. The moment you contemplate this God beyond a very basic definition you ended up running into all sorts of inconsistencies and contradictions. The more you attempt to describe/explain the more limitations you place on God. Since God is supposedly perfect this is self-defeating. I fail to see how such a vague and frequently divisive concept can lead to any practical knowledge of right and wrong.

It is also difficult to see how any true monotheist would have the ability to act on any knowledge they do gain about right and wrong. I do not see that the concept of free will is in any way compatible with the concept of God. This, of course, assumes God being defined as perfect and all powerful. Despite claims to the contrary, such a God would negate the notion of free will. For God to grant free will would require giving up both omnipotence and omniscience but that would immediately negate God itself by definition. An individual can not act in a way that is contrary to God. Since theists can not act contrary to God they have no free will and no responsibility. Basically, if God exist we are merely meat puppets. If you can not choose and can not be responsible you can not be either moral or immoral. Each theist simply is and must do what God has determined.

Theists like atheist gain their ethics and values from a wide variety of sources. Genetics, environment, socio-cultural factors, and parenting among others all play a role. And yes, indirectly religion as an aspect of culture and social interaction can play a role. It is not, however, the religion in itself but rather the ways the individual adherents interact.

Monotheism is amoral.