Morality
One of the things that kind of irritates me about a lot of theists is that they seem to believe that only by believing in their God can one be virtuous. Take a look at the first edicts of the three major monotheistic religions: "You shall have no other gods before me"; "love the Lord God with all your heart, all you mind, and all your soul"; "There is no god but God". Normative religion places a political statement above respect for life or even common decency. It would seem to me that not only is the morality of such theists empty, relying on a mythical being rather than reasoned understanding of causality and human welfare, but it's also unreliable: who knows what a true believer is going to believe God wants him to do? I think it's pretty obvious that most theists deviate from orthodoxy in some way, even if they are fully aware of what the orthodoxy is. What makes some things in the Bible the WORD OF GOD, and other things cultural relics? On what basis to true believers make the distinction? With that in mind, how can anyone be sure that one of these fools won't decide that you, or me, or somebody else is deserving of a tongue-lashing or, say, having his "lamp put out" for some thing that he believes is a sin?
A universal morality must be based in the real, the objective, that which requires faith only in the reality of the world to accept. Morality is first and foremost about how one treats other humans, and maybe other real beings like animals and plants. As one Catholic priest noted, Christian behavior begins not in the pew, but in the parking lot. It is obvious in such a view that an action is most usefully judged on the basis of that action's effects on other individuals -- simply quoting the Bible, or the Quran, or some obscure scroll or popular speaker is not sufficient. Knowing the effects of an action, we best determine whether those effects are desirable based on enlightened self-interest and empathy.
Self-interest predates just about all other conceptions. It starts when we're born, and we become acquainted with the various discomforts of life -- and, if we're lucky, alleviation of those discomforts. We all learn that it sucks to be hungry or thirsty, to have mushy poop in our diapers, or to be tired and unable to sleep. We all learn a preference to being handled gently and spoken to soothingly over being shaken or hit, or being yelled at. Long after we learn those preferences (relatively speaking), we learn that one or two individuals act to make us feel either better or worse. From all of this we learn what kind of behavior -- what we learn is called love -- we deserve. This sets up our barometer of what good behavior is, although at the time we think only in terms of behavior towards us. If we receive good behavior, we can view ourselves as valuable individuals deserving of good behavior. If we are mistreated, we can come to view ourselves as deserving only of such behavior. Further, we must move from self-interest to enlightened self-interest: just because we want to eat a quart of ice cream doesn't mean we should, to use a crude example.
Empathy is next thing we learn. The first moral question many of us hear is "How would you feel if somebody did that to you?" When we understand it, we also understand that other individuals are as deserving as we of whatever behavior we have come to identify as good behavior. If all we've known is mistreatment, it is likely that we will feel it appropriate to mistreat others. Most of us, however, learn that if we don't like something to happen to us, we shouldn't cause it to happen to someone else. We are also vulnerable, at this stage, to expecting other people to like or dislike the same things as we do, which when applied to big questions leads to things like inquisitions (I mean, I would want someone to burn the sin out of me to save my immortal soul; fortunately I have no sin, but if I did. . . .) and really bad birthday gifts. What we learn to do over time is identify specifically what we like and don't like, to better predict what somebody else will like or not like. For example, masochists don't like simply pain, but receiving pain under controlled circumstances to which they tacitly agree. Or, more subtly, Christians don't really want to live according to the Word of God, but rather what they conceive of as the Word of what they conceive of as God. Understanding that enables us to avoid perhaps the most basic evil: invalidating another person's experiences and will by presuming it to be no different from our own. Of course, if we never learn empathy, the welfare of others is irrelevant.
The next moral quality is the recognition of causality, which comes through experience -- empirical analysis and reason, if you will. It allows one to avoid doing that which would cause to happen to somebody else what one would not want to have happen to one's self, Refraining from such action is the most basic and necessary kind of morality. And if empathy is not enough to encourage one to refrain from harming another, enlightened self-interest should remind us that what comes around does indeed come around: those wronged by us seek to avenge themselves against us, just as we would seek against those wronging us. Awareness of our actions makes others more or less likely to trust us, making life within the community more or less difficult. Of course, the legal system is also a good stick, but far more subtle consequences should be enough to make us reconsider an action that could harm another. Although we live in a time that imposes on each of us an almost disturbing anonymity, none of us is invisible. That allows us to avoid Plato's question about the morality of the individual whose actions are not perceived. Again, though, a well-calibrated barometer of good treatment coupled with proper empathy should suffice even in the lack of consequences.
With these three ingredients, one can develop a simple but readily applicable statement of morality. The Golden Rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") is reasonably good, but it leaves one vulnerable to the bad birthday gift error. Because of this, as a basic statement of morality I prefer "refrain from doing unto others that which you would not have them do unto you." Or "an ye harm none, do what ye will" (because "these words the Wiccan Rede fulfill"). It has an advantage over the Golden Rule of being a negative, "do not" statement. I would add another layer of morality: a communal component. That is, "refrain from doing that which, if practiced by everybody else, would cause to happen to others what you would not have happen to you". Using resources recklessly, or exploiting loopholes in the letter of a law, or following too closely in traffic, or always taking from the penny jar instead of giving; such actions would violate that principle. To be truly moral, however, one must be highly aware of reality and causality. Most of the vexing moral infringements we experience during the day are the result simply of inattention (except for those jackasses who play music on their car stereos with basslines and sub-woofers strong enough to shake cars in adjacent lanes and be heard two apartment complexes and a park away. Bastards.). At any rate, the above statements of morality place the analysis where it belongs: on understanding what's good for others as well as ourselves, and what causes the good and the bad, rather than what a mythical being may or may not have said. More simply put: no god required.
Bear in mind that I'm not painting all theists, or Christians, with the same brush: enlightened individuals don't let God or Scripture get in the way of morality. I also recognize that religion has the value of providing moral teaching to persons who lack the ability to conceptualize complicated causality or subtly empathize with others: a few "thou shalt not's and a Santa Claus figure is all these folks need. Karma is a good illustration of abstract or diffuse consequences; so's three-fold retribution. But they are not necessary, again, focus on what's important, lest we be duped into doing the wrong thing by someone who convinces us that God wants us to. That leads to true morality, which is found in looking at reality, and the welfare of others, rather than the commandments of God.
A universal morality must be based in the real, the objective, that which requires faith only in the reality of the world to accept. Morality is first and foremost about how one treats other humans, and maybe other real beings like animals and plants. As one Catholic priest noted, Christian behavior begins not in the pew, but in the parking lot. It is obvious in such a view that an action is most usefully judged on the basis of that action's effects on other individuals -- simply quoting the Bible, or the Quran, or some obscure scroll or popular speaker is not sufficient. Knowing the effects of an action, we best determine whether those effects are desirable based on enlightened self-interest and empathy.
Self-interest predates just about all other conceptions. It starts when we're born, and we become acquainted with the various discomforts of life -- and, if we're lucky, alleviation of those discomforts. We all learn that it sucks to be hungry or thirsty, to have mushy poop in our diapers, or to be tired and unable to sleep. We all learn a preference to being handled gently and spoken to soothingly over being shaken or hit, or being yelled at. Long after we learn those preferences (relatively speaking), we learn that one or two individuals act to make us feel either better or worse. From all of this we learn what kind of behavior -- what we learn is called love -- we deserve. This sets up our barometer of what good behavior is, although at the time we think only in terms of behavior towards us. If we receive good behavior, we can view ourselves as valuable individuals deserving of good behavior. If we are mistreated, we can come to view ourselves as deserving only of such behavior. Further, we must move from self-interest to enlightened self-interest: just because we want to eat a quart of ice cream doesn't mean we should, to use a crude example.
Empathy is next thing we learn. The first moral question many of us hear is "How would you feel if somebody did that to you?" When we understand it, we also understand that other individuals are as deserving as we of whatever behavior we have come to identify as good behavior. If all we've known is mistreatment, it is likely that we will feel it appropriate to mistreat others. Most of us, however, learn that if we don't like something to happen to us, we shouldn't cause it to happen to someone else. We are also vulnerable, at this stage, to expecting other people to like or dislike the same things as we do, which when applied to big questions leads to things like inquisitions (I mean, I would want someone to burn the sin out of me to save my immortal soul; fortunately I have no sin, but if I did. . . .) and really bad birthday gifts. What we learn to do over time is identify specifically what we like and don't like, to better predict what somebody else will like or not like. For example, masochists don't like simply pain, but receiving pain under controlled circumstances to which they tacitly agree. Or, more subtly, Christians don't really want to live according to the Word of God, but rather what they conceive of as the Word of what they conceive of as God. Understanding that enables us to avoid perhaps the most basic evil: invalidating another person's experiences and will by presuming it to be no different from our own. Of course, if we never learn empathy, the welfare of others is irrelevant.
The next moral quality is the recognition of causality, which comes through experience -- empirical analysis and reason, if you will. It allows one to avoid doing that which would cause to happen to somebody else what one would not want to have happen to one's self, Refraining from such action is the most basic and necessary kind of morality. And if empathy is not enough to encourage one to refrain from harming another, enlightened self-interest should remind us that what comes around does indeed come around: those wronged by us seek to avenge themselves against us, just as we would seek against those wronging us. Awareness of our actions makes others more or less likely to trust us, making life within the community more or less difficult. Of course, the legal system is also a good stick, but far more subtle consequences should be enough to make us reconsider an action that could harm another. Although we live in a time that imposes on each of us an almost disturbing anonymity, none of us is invisible. That allows us to avoid Plato's question about the morality of the individual whose actions are not perceived. Again, though, a well-calibrated barometer of good treatment coupled with proper empathy should suffice even in the lack of consequences.
With these three ingredients, one can develop a simple but readily applicable statement of morality. The Golden Rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") is reasonably good, but it leaves one vulnerable to the bad birthday gift error. Because of this, as a basic statement of morality I prefer "refrain from doing unto others that which you would not have them do unto you." Or "an ye harm none, do what ye will" (because "these words the Wiccan Rede fulfill"). It has an advantage over the Golden Rule of being a negative, "do not" statement. I would add another layer of morality: a communal component. That is, "refrain from doing that which, if practiced by everybody else, would cause to happen to others what you would not have happen to you". Using resources recklessly, or exploiting loopholes in the letter of a law, or following too closely in traffic, or always taking from the penny jar instead of giving; such actions would violate that principle. To be truly moral, however, one must be highly aware of reality and causality. Most of the vexing moral infringements we experience during the day are the result simply of inattention (except for those jackasses who play music on their car stereos with basslines and sub-woofers strong enough to shake cars in adjacent lanes and be heard two apartment complexes and a park away. Bastards.). At any rate, the above statements of morality place the analysis where it belongs: on understanding what's good for others as well as ourselves, and what causes the good and the bad, rather than what a mythical being may or may not have said. More simply put: no god required.
Bear in mind that I'm not painting all theists, or Christians, with the same brush: enlightened individuals don't let God or Scripture get in the way of morality. I also recognize that religion has the value of providing moral teaching to persons who lack the ability to conceptualize complicated causality or subtly empathize with others: a few "thou shalt not's and a Santa Claus figure is all these folks need. Karma is a good illustration of abstract or diffuse consequences; so's three-fold retribution. But they are not necessary, again, focus on what's important, lest we be duped into doing the wrong thing by someone who convinces us that God wants us to. That leads to true morality, which is found in looking at reality, and the welfare of others, rather than the commandments of God.
posted by heavynettle at 19:30
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home