The Biological Mechanistic View
They believe in a completely physical view of the universe and that God is doubtful, non-existent or at the very least, ironic. They believe that life is a combination of statistical chance and free will. They tend to be non religious and if they do participate, do so for reasons of community more then moral guidance. Laws are seen as being based on social compacts between people in order to get along with one another, which in fact was the reason for the original Ten Commandments.
Norms tend to change with time or culture and circumstance with the majority of decisions being seen as personal and out of the realm of state regulation. They tend to lean towards social engineering models of achieving changes in the level of criminality. They tend to agree with the metaphysical group in the application of philosophy to social engineering but in the name of cost effectiveness and humane treatment rather than spiritual principle. Moral judgments are seen as the evolution of cultural and societal norms which means that life is dependent on time, circumstances and varies with the needs of the individual vs society. Life is viewed not as sacred but conditional.
The nature of a society that has divergent views of the source of morality results in serious conflicts. The conflict between the different group's above views of the source of morality is a source of friction and divisiveness. The fact that most of the founders were deists was not the only reason for establishing a government based on equality and justice as opposed to divine rights, they also recognized that the diverse and dogmatic beliefs in American religions would soon wreck the new nation if they were allowed to dominate decisions on law. Consequently separation of church and state was seen as essential to the fledgling country's survival.
These conflicts persist today. While most people think murder is wrong, most disagree as to a universal cause, response or even what murder is. Is self defense murder, what is self defense, and is it someone attacking you or just coming in your house? Obviously the answers soon become schizophrenic with no universal one right answer, setting off individual and cultural conflicts.
While all agree that murder must receive some societal sanction most agree there should be some discretion for its definition, individual circumstances or rehabilitation. Laws and punishment vary widely from state to state. In some states the criteria for sanity are situational in their application while in others like Texas insanity is almost impossible to prove, because it is so narrowly defined.
Punishment is similarly disputed. While there is a group of Christian Reconstructionists who believe that the death penalty should be widened to include the stoning of adulterous women, others believe that there should be no death penalty at all, clearly a conflict between concrete dogma and abstract situationalism. In Texas the death penalty is considered sacrosanct even though there is no payoff for society in either cost or deterrent value and innocent individuals have been known to have been executed.
Views on abortion also reflect this conflict. Most Americans view abortion in the first trimester as acceptable, and after that acceptable only if it endangers the health of the women, but not for sex selection or reasons of preference. Is abortion murder when implantation in the uterus is prevented, such as with the morning after pill, is it murder in the eighth month when a child is found to be horribly deformed or without a forebrain?
If as a society we want abortions prevented, than do we have a responsibility to provide the information and means to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Those who are against abortion seem to argue that while the mother and father should be responsible for the unwanted child, society bears no responsibility for their education of preventative means. This is not the general rule that American society has followed that has served us well. This allows rigid moralists to avoid the very societal obligation that they would impose on others.
The civil argument historically has come down on the line of when does the societal interest trump the personal interest and then it supposes some societal responsibility for prevention, intervention and rehabilitation as mitigation. Society decided not only was slavery wrong, but it must be against the law in all of its forms, and passed laws to make restitution and take corrective action.
The reality is that society imposes these definitions by consensus, it decides on what is a crime and whether crimes are strictly the responsibility of those who commit them or whether society bears a role in the creation of the circumstances led to its commission and how much, how much responsibility any one person bears and if they can be rehabilitated. The resolution of that argument in this country has been a compromise between those who believe in a mixture of social engineering to prevent crime and attempted rehabilitation vs. those who believe in total personal responsibility, compliance and punishment as the only answer. The extremes would be a culture of dependence and license or completely the other way where there is a culture that abandons any societal obligation and forms a prison state.
The Common Denominator, Collective Rights and Responsibility
Because there is not universal acceptance of the determination of morals in our diverse society what has evolved is a balance between individual rights and responsibility and collective rights and responsibility. What had previously been accepted and is currently threatened is that collective rights and responsibilities were necessary for the protection of individual rights and responsibilities.
Men evolved not in a world of private property but of common property. The group was in ownership of most land and as a group created the rules and customs by which they lived. Their fate was collective even where there emerged individual leaders. Individual rights and responsibilities were available only based on the protection of the group and within the collective rights and responsibilities. You may own your own hut but you shared pasture and communal responsibilities. You may have individual rights but they are only enforceable against a bigger individual if your neighbors are willing to help you insure them.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
