Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

The Milk of Paradise is not a Christian book. It is a murder mystery in which characters are conflicted about the right way to act.

I try to address one of the moral ambiguities thrown up by our modern, post religious, society: in a Godless universe, can you lead an ethical life and still be true to yourself? (True to yourself in the post-enlightenment sense of the Romantic hero who follows his/her own path, eschewing ideas of moral absolutes or ethical values, and adhering only to the truth of his/her intuitive feelings)
If, in a Godless universe where science has no conscience, new scientific discoveries allowed your darkest desires to become legal, should you satisfy them? If morality has no rational basis, not to follow your desires would mean not being true to yourself. To quote dear old Dostoyevsky, ‘if God does not exist, everything is permitted.’
I’m deliberately not talking about ethics: abiding by an ethical code can be self-serving since it generates reciprocity and therefore has its own rewards.
It would be good to hear of crime/mystery novels out there that address these kinds of issues, or, if crime/mystery novels should not be vehicles for such themes?

Purely on a personal basis, if I detected such content I would definitely be put off from reading your book.

I don't do preachy Christian fiction, no matter the sub-genre, so I definitely would be put off by a book like what you describe. One need not have religion in order to be an ethical individual.

Sharon wrote: "I don't do preachy Christian fiction, no matter the sub-genre, so I definitely would be put off by a book like what you describe. One need not have religion in order to be an ethical individual."

Wow. Sorry. The last thing the book is is Christian. I'd better take the blog down. Sean

I would point out that laws and social customs have existed in every human society, big or small, long before the existence of organised religions, let alone monotheistic ones. To take the position that morals cannot exist without religion is a fairly insulting one to a great proportion of the population of the world.

I absolutely agree with you. This is the kind discussion I wish to start. What kind of moral or ethical framework can we have without having to bring God into it?

Sean wrote: "I ask because in my first novel, The Milk of Paradise, I try to address one of the moral ambiguities thrown up by our modern, post religious, society: in a Godless universe, can you lead an ethical..."

Wow! What a project!

Exactly how involved do you want this discussion to get, because the permutations are endless?

And who says that modern society is always morally ambiguous? People don't fly planes into buildings because they think their beliefs are ambiguous. Nor do people taking a side on hot-button issues like abortion think there is any moral ambiguity involved. That would be the first highly, highly arguable point.

Now, picture American society as an overweight, middle-aged, very grumpy, already irritated woman. Now, poke her with a sharp stick.

Handled delicately, you can do anything you want. I think the problem you may run into currently is that the rise of the New Atheist movement has generated more philosophical discussion in the last decade than most people think. These issues have been broadly discussed, and many people have been exposed to multiple viewpoints already, so the bloom is off the rose, so to speak.

Taking the view that secular ethics are an inferior moral code probably won't play well. People are well aware that this has been repeatedly falsified by numerous independent studies around the world. Can the godless lead an ethical life and be true to themselves? Sure, they do it every day. Except, they lie publicly about religious beliefs if they want to be voted into office in America.

The religiously unaffiliated are approximately 15 to 20 percent of our population, That's roughly 65 million people. Among young people, non-believers and the religiously unaffiliated account for approximately one-third of that age group. These are not uneducated people, especially in a communication age, so you'll have to target your audience most carefully, to say the least.

But, think about it for a minute. If there were 65 million people in the US with no morals or ethics, and doing whatever the hell they wanted, our society would be in complete chaos. So, how you handle your Romantic hero with no moral absolutes or ethical values will not reflect societal norms. Backstory will be critical.

The rational basis for morality is hotly debated, and recently Dostoyevsky has been on the losing side of the public debate. You can see for yourself at Intelligence Squared Debates (American), and both Oxford and Cambridge Debating Societies (British). These organizations regularly post related public debates on the Internet.

You also need to tread carefully with science. First, it never had a conscience. Science is the search for truth, not moral judgements. An electron doesn't care if you're a nun or a serial killer. If you bring religion or other spiritual beliefs into a science lab, skewing the results due to moral predispositions, not only will your work not pass peer review, but you won't have your job for very long.

Conversely, it's unlikely that an arbitrary religious or moral stance will satisfactorily resolve many of the issues that will arise while writing such a book. Philosophical issues are not cut and dry, nor is there ever only one point of view on these issues. You're going to need lots of wiggle room to maintain the suspension of disbelief.

It also seems that you are unaware of current research into public morality. If you really need to trust someone, unbiased studies have repeatedly shown that you should look for an atheist. The godless aren't handed their morality. They actually have to think about it. That's an entire debate unto itself.

Deliberately not talking about ethics is going to be difficult, especially if your protagonist 'follows his desire' to murder someone or commit some other obviously inhumane act. Such desires are going to be a hard sell to readers of crime/mystery who want the bad guy punished in the end.

And, I disagree that a moral code is self-serving and generates reciprocity. Again, philosophical issues are not that cut and dry.

Bottom line: Sure, you can do it, but be prepared for an absolute ton of research if you want it to ring true in "our modern, post religious society."

Can you blend this into a crime/mystery novel? Again, sure. Why not?

Tough project. Best of luck.

You should write what your heart tells you to write. The people who will understand, will be drawn to it. It is important to express and push boundaries. The moment you are careful- your art suffers. If you aim to be commercial and suit all tastes you have already begun to falter. We live in a world that will take the very last grain of expression and feeling from you. This is your platform. Wield it with honor and choose your words wisely. Good luck to you!

I have no problem with philosophical novels, if it is done right. If it becomes preachy, I don't like it, if it blends into the narrative I think it can add to a good novel.

Any theme can be interwoven into a crime/mystery genre, if it feels natural/organic and the reader, expecting some crime/entertainment, doesn't end up with mostly philosophical dilemmas instead-:) Question of subtlety, balance and good taste. Conversely as it sounds, pure entertainment net of anything else may be shallow and boring.
In stuff I write I always try to put controversial arguments to add some thought provoking edge to it. I hope that when dealing with oligarchs, moral aspects of enrichment as well as problems of modern capitalism should come natural.

To answer the original question in this discussion thread's title - Is it okay to address philosophical themes in crime/mystery novels? - the obvious answer is yes. Why? Because it has already been done quite well and successfully by author Dan Brown in two of his best-selling novels The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons.

If this is what you feel compelled to write, go for it. I don't believe in a lot of rules for writers but one should be: Never doubt or fear of your ideas.

Jay wrote: "Now, picture American society as an overweight, middle-aged, very grumpy, already irritated woman. Now, poke her with a sharp stick."

I'm kind of at a loss for words over this specific analogy ... so I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion before I find the *exact* words I want. They won't be very polite, I can assure you of that.

Why wouldn't philosophical discussion fit into a murder mystery story? Genre does not inherently preclude discussion or exploration of anything related to the human experience.

However, the question "What kind of moral or ethical framework can we have without having to bring God into it?" is a bit puzzling--as if morality and ethics are the sole domain of religion. Skipping over the countless debates about the origins of morality that have been waged for centuries, one simply has to look at secular political systems to see that moral and ethical frameworks can and have been put into place apart from the domain of religion.

Thomas Jefferson, for example, in the forming of the US constitution talked of natural rights coming from natural law--not God's law. And our constitution is a secular framework that forbids the joining of church and state.

And I think there is ample scientific evidence that our moral and ethical sensibilities have evolved over time to the point where we appear to be domesticating ourselves. As one person I heard on the radio discussing the decline in violence in modern societies put it: "If you put 250 chimpanzees on an airplane flying non-stop from New York to San Francisco, there's likely to be only one or two of them alive at the end. Whereas thousands of humans make similar trips every day and no one kills anyone."

Why? Because God said thou shalt not kill? No, because we all know that as uncomfortable as those flights are, we will all achieve our own personal goals better and faster if we just play nice and put up with each other.

There is an evolutionary advantage to being moral. Cooperation and being nice to each other makes it possible for more people to be effective and productive for the betterment of society as a whole. No god needs invoked for that kind of humanist ethical/moral framework.

bah i was going to add my 2 cents but micah beat me to it. basically what he said.

*devil advocate mode* damn it dude its your book. screw commercialism. yeah you wont get everybody but then everybody won't get it.

Libby wrote: "I think even the comments so far give you a (small) taste of what the reactions the book could draw. If you're prepared to be quite exacting about this, and communicate exactly what you're meaning to, go for it. But also be prepared to weather the reactions. Reactions don't mean don't do it, just be ready for it. "

Right. It boils down to this, then - are the opinions and reactions to the book more important than the book itself? I know when it comes to my writing, if I want to write the book, I write the book. No matter what you write, someone will hate it, so it's not worth wasting energy worrying about it.

Jay wrote: It also seems that you are unaware of current research into public morality. If you really need to trust someone, unbiased studies have repeatedly shown that you should look for an atheist. The godless aren't handed their morality. They actually have to think about it. That's an entire debate unto itself.


As it happens, I am well aware of the current debates about morality and ethics. The consensus amongst professional philosophers and academic teachers of philosophy seems to be that there are no grounds for the existence of any kind of moral code. So even the ‘Godless thinking about it’ haven’t come up with a credible model

Perhaps it would have been more apt to state: God does not exist and so all things are permitted.

If this is so, then, as said before, the post-enlightenment hero is one who follows her/his feelings no matter what. Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy, thought such ideas lead to Auschwitz. Also, Isaiah Berlin thought Romanticism ended Western ideas about moral absolutes and agreed values.

Sean wrote: "Perhaps it would have been more apt to state: God does not exist and so all things are permitted..."

Tell that to the jury when you're on trial for that mass murder spree you just went on.

Also, if that were true, then wouldn't we tend to see higher crime in countries with largely non-religious populations? I have a hunch that isn't reflected in actual statistics, as IIRC northern European countries have some of the highest non-religious populations, and simultaneously some of the lowest crime rates (especially violent crime).

There's a big difference between a person's personal moral/ethical code and what society will allow.

And, you cannot rely on philosophy alone for determining what is reality. Philosophy isn't an empirical science. In the last couple of decades neuroscience has also gotten into the question.

http://kdvr.com/2014/03/26/neuroscien...

Scientists have shown that there is a specific network of brain regions involved in mediating moral judgment. An influential study on this topic was published in 2001 and led by Joshua D. Greene, associate professor at Harvard University, author of “Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them.”

No matter what their ultimate conclusion, it appears there is at least in part a biological component in making moral decisions.

Libby wrote: "I think even the comments so far give you a (small) taste of what the reactions the book could draw. If you're prepared to be quite exacting about this, and communicate exactly what you're meaning ..."

At the end of the day, Libby has really given you the bottom line. Write the book you want to write.

Sean wrote: "The consensus amongst professional philosophers and academic teachers of philosophy seems to be that there are no grounds for the existence of any kind of moral code. So even the ‘Godless thinking about it’ haven’t come up with a credible model

Perhaps it would have been more apt to state: God does not exist and so all things are permitted."

As I said, this is an entire debate unto itself.

I have yet to see a consensus from professional philosophers on any topic. "Most birds fly." Possibly true, but why does the bird fly, and is there really a bird?" Go figure.

If you do indeed have a study that shows consensus, I'd like to read it. So, please post the link.

Morality has been argued since the beginning of philosophy, and philosophers such as Neitzsche outright attack it. Mills doesn't agree with Bentham, who doesn't agree with Russel, who doesn't agree with _____. (fill in the blank)

However, it's indisputable that morality predates organized religion, likely by many millennia. Secular morality is not inferior to the morality based in any religious scripture. Nor does any religious morality have a credible claim to being superior to other religion-based moral codes.

And as Micah noted, neuroscientists are very interested in the possible biological component of morality. It may in fact be an evolutionary necessity. Most animals care for their young and do not kill their own kind.

It's also true (as Micah also noted) that countries with low religiosity have a more civilized society (lower crime, fewer poor, etc.) and a higher standard of living than the US.

Demographics are what they are. The people compiling these studies are not writing fiction.

And by the way, Adolph Hitler was a Christian. Auschwitz is not an argument, it's an atrocity.

There is an entirely credible model for morality, constructed within each individual every time they are faced with a moral decision. The fact that there is no universally accepted morality in this world does not imply that "all things are permitted".

Religion is not required for moral behavior. Secular morality works very well, and many people think it is superior to that of various religions. And the thoughts of Isaiah Belin are no less arguable than the thoughts of any other scholar.

Bottom line: This is an entire debate unto itself.

There must be an echo in here.