Morality
The discussions on my posting on the taboo test showed that I had done a poor job in the posts of explaining my moral views in totality or in an organized fashion. So this post is an attempt to do that. First off, any discussion of morality must be confined to the realm of free will and choices. Animals, the weather, and similar things cannot behave in a moral or and immoral fashion. This is also true of very young humans. Babies are by nature amoral creatures. Over time, they develop the capability for rational thought and become accountable for their choices, becoming either moral or immoral creatures. Certainly it is difficult to draw a line between a creature that is capable of morality and one that is not. How developmentally disabled can one be before free will is lost? I won’t attempt to explore that topic in detail here, suffice it to say that a gray region does exist. Morality must be thought of in two ways. First, there is a moral or an immoral choice. This is I believe something that is always right and wrong, there is no gray area, no relativism. Determining the correct choice may be difficult, but I assert that there always is one. Second, there is a moral or an immoral person. In this category there is nothing but shades of gray. No one is perfectly moral and no one is perfectly immoral. This differentiation is more defined by an earnest attempt to make moral choices than by final outcomes of events. First lets examine the choice itself, individual acts that are either moral or immoral. I define a moral choice as the one possible choice, out of all possible choices that yields the best result. Best is of course a very subjective term. In most cases, we can all agree on what that is, even though it may be difficult to accurately describe it. The best is the one that yields the most joy and advancement of well being for humanity. I don’t know that a logical definition of what is best can be constructed; value judgments are largely emotional in nature. There are diverse moral theories on this, and I think all can provide insights, but ultimately this is an emotional decision. Despite that, I think there is wide agreement on what is ‘best.’ Very few moral codes, even those that create what I consider to be very immoral actions have differing definitions of what is best, they are far more likely to differ on how we know what is best. Always knowing what is best is of course impossible. We have limited knowledge and must always operate with an incomplete understanding. I hold that using our intelligence to consider likely outcomes of our choices and having the humility to defer to established societal norms unless we are certain they are incorrect, and even then to be cautious, is the best way to evaluate our decisions. Others of course believe that communion with an omniscient divinity is a more reliable means of gaining the guidance for which choice is best. Having a reliable communion with omniscience would of course transcend human frailty, so this alternative has an obvious attractiveness. However, it does seem clear from history that this method is not always reliable. Among those who have professed such a communion, are some seemingly immoral men. We must conclude then that either morality is impossible for us to evaluate, and these immoral men were in fact moral (a notion I reject) or that they were lying or were deceived. While it is possible some men of this type have knowingly lied, I think a more likely explanation for most is that they were deceived, either by themselves or perhaps some external force. However, the communion with divinity method does seem to yield positive results frequently as well. As I have mentioned before, many people of faith seem to have a very positive moral character and I have a great deal of respect for them. I hypothesize that those of a high moral character use the characteristics of reason and humility that I mentioned above to prevent themselves from being deceived. As an aside, for those atheists out there, it is possible of course that no communion with a omniscient being is possible, as no such being exists. If that is the case, then it seems to me on basis of evidence, that attempting such a communion, even if necessarily futile, yields positive results and the use of reason and humility to guide one’s actions remains just as necessary. If devout believers can sometimes suffer and excess of humility, and not exercise enough reason on their own, then the reverse can be true as well. Those who insist that their own intellectual capabilities are enough to guide all moral decisions can be perhaps even more immoral than those who blindly follow a religious dogma. Hitler and the adherents of communism are both examples of that. Human reason is by nature limited and flawed, and any philosophy or moral code that does not take this into account is liable to make grave mistakes. Too much trust in reason leads to utopianism, and the inevitable evils that result when a utopia does not work out as well in reality as it does in the mind of the dreamer. Human societies evolve over time to weed out these mistake, or at least some of the most egregious examples of them. Thus, we should be cautious in make changes to established societal norms and proceed with caution and awareness that our vaunted reason could be flawed in some fashion. This leads me back to moral and immoral people. With all of these factors in play, we all must make guesses as to the best choice in any given situation. A moral person will sincerely try to make the best choices possible, including examining ones past choices based upon their final outcomes. Few immoral people choose immorality as a goal; rather they simply fail to consistently attempt to be moral, or fail to use the proper techniques for evaluating their decisions. Related to the concept of morality is the concept of punishment and law. This post has gone long enough, so I won’t get into detail on that now. Suffice it to say that while law should be moral, not all that is immoral should be defined by law or subject to punishment. As always, I welcome any comments. I don't know how clearly I have explained my thoughts in this post, and if you have any suggestions on how to clarify them, that would be nice. If you have any disagreements with what I have written I certainly welcome that as well.
posted by Dave Justus | 5/27/2005 01:56:00 PM
13 Comments:
Dave, it is a brave man that tackles the subject of morality in such a public way. I have dipped my toe into these deep waters myself. It is not an easy thing to do. For that reason, please do not take anything that I write here (or that I might refer to elsewhere) as trying to prove that you are wrong, or that your ideas of morality are false. I prefer to look at criticism of my ideas (in this topic at least) as providing an alternate window, sometimes from the neighbours’ house, on the same scene. I also hope that your attempt does not meet with the same fate as mine (including the well-intentioned gentleman who thought that my soul needed saving).
I think that the first difficulty that I have comes from your “individual acts are either moral or immoral”. There is a degree of “absolute” here, and your stated belief that “morality” does not allow for alternatives or “the shades of grey”. You confirm this with similar statements later in your post.
To illustrate my difficulty, can we try the “morality quiz” idea in a slightly different form.
As a baseline, I think that we would both agree that the intentional taking of another (human) life is immoral.
So, let us assume that we are marooned on a tropical island. Rescue is not an immediate prospect. I cut my leg open on a coral outcrop. The cut becomes badly infected (I have quite bad varicose veins) and two days later I am suffering gas gangrene (necrotising fasciitis if you like) in my leg, and it has started to spread to my abdomen. There is nothing that could really be done at this point, even with the best of medical help, and you have a companion screaming in agony and demanding that you put an end to his life. Is it a moral act to intentionally end my life in these circumstances? Or is it more moral to move to the other end of the island where you are unable to hear my screams of agony? If you decide to put me out of my misery, is it a case of “intentional killing” or is it “assisted suicide”?
As a second baseline, on the same matter. If the taking of human life is immoral, what do you say to all of your fellow Americans who believe that it is quite appropriate and moral to take the life of another person in defence of “home, castle and family”?
The point that I hope is coming through here (and I think this is also part of the point of the “morality quiz” that began the discussion) is that morality is in fact not an absolute but must be able to shift through different circumstances. Does that mean that killing “in defence of home and family” is more moral than a drive-by shooting in downtown New York? In my belief that is a very strong NO. But then, I do not live in the US. At the same time as I say that, I must confess to a considerable sympathy for the farmer in Northland who wounded with a shotgun one of four men who were stealing a quad bike from his shed. He has subsequently been found not guilty in Court – a good decision in my mind. Had he killed the guy? Don’t know. Or what about the 14y-o boy who had (his defence in Court said) been systematically beaten and sexually assaulted by his step father over a period of years, and whom he shot dead and was subsequently found guilty of manslaughter. Don’t know.
As a note to the farmer's case, I would have no hesitation in using a shotgun in those circumstances. I would not use metal shot - large grain rock salt would be far more effective...
I believe that rather than accepting that morality is an absolute, you have taken a different course, sidestepped the issue, by accepting a “moral” choice as the one which yields the best result. With respect, when I put that alongside your later statement that those who follow their own intellectual capabilities “can perhaps be even more immoral than those who blindly follow religious dogma” I have difficulty in determining just where your personal morality is based. More to the point, we now have to consider two new factors; “best result” by whose measure, and whether “religious dogma” does deliver the most acceptable and effective morality.
As an atheist, I could argue (I never have, never will, but I use this as illustration of the difficulty I have with your “baseline”) that “communion with an omniscient deity” is in fact an (un)conscious “unloading” of one’s personal responsibility for a decision. I can accept that prayer is a means of internalised debate and determining what one believes is a valid course of action; and that differs not with my wrestling with my conscience over the same problem. The only difference in the outcome might be that I will accept full responsibility for the outcome, whereas a “person of faith” can console himself that “it was God’s will”. I can only say personally I believe this difference leads to me being “more careful” in deciding “what is a moral act”.
There is an “after effect” here as well. If a “person of belief” commits an immoral act they can (and I think this is almost an universal in religions) return to their omniscient deity and “confess” to the immoral act. By this “act of contrition”, they are again able to unload the personal responsibility for an immoral act. I can not help but wonder at the state of mind and conscience is of a person who was a Minister of Religion, an elder of the Presbyterian Church, was a respected Member of Parliament representing a “Christian” electorate, and a pillar of the community, when it is found that he has been guilty of sexual molestation and other unlawful acts involving children of the age of twelve and less. Does he pray for forgiveness? Do his acts weigh more or less on his mind because of “God’s forgiveness”?
Just while I follow that line, is there a distinction between that example ( Graeme Caple) and the “Pitcairn six”; leaders of the Pitcairn Island recently found guilty of sexual molestation and the equivalent of statutory rape. One of their defence lines (at least early on) was to claim a “cultural droit de seigneur”. Does a claimed or perceived cultural difference change in any way the morality of an action? That again was one of the pillars of the “morality test”, as you so rightly pointed out...
Before leaving that point, can I also add that I the atheist have no direct line to "forgiveness" other than through the person whom I have wronged. Without that person's forgiveness I must carry the wrong on my own conscience. Again, I believe that to be a very limiting factor to my determination of moral and immoral, right and wrong if you wish.
Finally, can I suggest that you weaken your argument immensely by including “opposites” such as Hitler and “communist regimes”. I do not want to debate the relationship here for the very reason that I believe them to be the worst kind of red herrings. Why not choose an American mass murderer? Why not debate the morality of Bush invading Iraq? As “opposites” they are as pertinent to the debate on morality; if not closer to home.
Two of my previous attempts at this subject lie here -
http://whoneedsreligion.blogspot.com/2004/09/on-being-subject-to-law.html
and here -
http://golden-rule-debate.blogspot.com/2005/01/to-be-fair-to-brandon-his-original.html
Here are hyperlinks to Probligo's posts: On being subject to law, and golden rule debate
I think Probligo has entirely missed what I was trying to say. Yes, I believe very strongly that their is good and evil. That for any given choice there is one right and a multitude of wrong answers. However, the entire thrust of my post is that determining the right answer is difficult and depends highly on what the choice being presented is.
For some choices, killing another human is clearly wrong. That does not mean that killing another human is wrong in all choices.
A choice is black and white, although our ability to determine the 'white' at times is limited. Because of this, all men are shades of gray. Those who consistantly strive to find and choose the right answer, attempting as best they can to use their abilities with reason coupled with a sense of humility are the people that I put into the category of moral people, they are the 'light gray people' while those who do not a generally immoral people. The frequency and severity of their deviation from the correct choices determines how immoral I think they are, and my reaction to them, and how I choose (and how society should choose) to deal with them will vary depending on that.
I suppose you can say that I am sidestepping the issue of 'best result' by acknowledging that this is extremely difficult to determine.
However, I am convinced that concienciously attempting to apply reason coupled with humble consideration of the limits of ones reason will consistantly lead one away from the worst choices and toward the best choices.
I think that the effects of being moral, the existence of heaven and hell, and the spritual state of one's soul is beyond the scope of this post. Let me say breifly that the application of repentance and forgiveness, and the necessary steps for both, varies widely amoung even the Christian demoninations, let alone other major religions. Some of these principles can be talked about from a neutral, logical point of view and others require common points of doctrine for a relevant discussion to happen.
This post does not attempt to deal with the purpose or appropriateness of secular punishments, let alone the non-secular punishments imposed by a supreme supernatural being.
As I said in this post, I find many people of strong religious faith to be both of extraordinary moral character and to have a personal sense of peace and a deep well-spring of joy. That is, I believe, deserving of respect and thoughtful consideration.
I believe I have sufficiently explained that following a culteral (or religious) dogma blindly without applying reason is a mistake. I extend a degree of tolerance to people who make moral mistakes from culteral blindspots (the slave owning founding Fathers of America are a good example of this) without feeling any need to condone or accept that those choices were the moral ones.
I choose the totalitarin communists and the Nazi's as my examples of evil that can result of to much trust in one's own reason precisely because they are the most extreme examples of this. Mass murderers, by and large, do not even attempt to be moral in my opinion. As for George Bush, even if I were to concede that the choice to invade Iraq was immorral (not something I am willing to do,) I do not think it is clear that that decision resulted from an over abundance in trust in one's own reason, Bush admits to strong religious beliefs, by his own words he humbly sought guidance on this issue, and is often criticized for being too religious. One can judge for oneself if this is sincere or merely an act, but regardless it would not illustrate my point even if I agreed that it was immoral.
If you would like a more mundane view of this, I think that the objectivist (Randian) beliefs can fall in this trap. In particular, I find their insistance than an abortion up until the moment of delivery to always be moral, based upon their logical premises to be a good example of that. I am not opposed to all abortions, but I think that any moral code that concludes killing a baby a minute before delivery is ok, but killing a baby a minute after delivery is wrong to be untennable.
I don't want this post to vere off too heaviliy into the abortion debate, so I was hesitant to use that example. I would prefer if other commenters feel a need to discuss abortion in detail they either blog it on their own, or wait until I put up an abortion post and comment on it then. If you feel a burning need to discuss this particular issue, you may email me and I will at some point use those emails to construct a post specific to that topic.
I think that your statement that "all choice is black and white" is where I have had the difficulty in following your logic. On reflection it is a matter of "looking out the other window".
If we take the broadest example - "Killing another human is immoral" - then you see that as a black and white choice; I look and see the shades of grey between two extremes. When I choose a point along that contiuum, you can still see a "black and white choice" with the selection becoming more difficult; I see the addition of circumstances in fact bringing the "black and white choice" into better focus.
"For some choices, killing another human is clearly wrong. That does not mean that killing another human is wrong in all choices."
Dave, a couple months back there was a fascinating doco on tv here titled (if I remember rightly) "Over 8000". The title referred to the "black zone" above 8000m on Mt Everest. The central thrust of the programme was the change in culture and morality (especially toward the sanctity of life) experienced and accepted by people in that extreme environment. It is a simplification of the programme to say that when your own life is on the line then all other lives become cheap. The reality of those extreme environments (polar, high altitude) can provide all manner of parallel scenarios. One which came to mind when I was writing that last comment was that of cannibalism - the aircraft that crashed in the high Andes being a case in point.
But after reflecting on that change in culture and morality, it occurred to me that "extreme environment" could apply to a very wide range of different situations.
One that comes to mind now is that of a war zone. Israel / Palestine as an example of an "extreme environment" could provide an explanation of suicide bombers - life is cheap, the end goal is all...
As I said at the start of my comment, I intended no criticism of your position nor to find fault. It is interesting that in fact I think we are closer in moral principles (leaving out the religious aspects) than you might imagine. I respect the fact that you have now said clearly that morality can change with circumstances rather than reply to the direct questions I put - that really is the response that I was hoping for.
"I find many people of strong religious faith to be both of extraordinary moral character and to have a personal sense of peace and a deep well-spring of joy. That is, I believe, deserving of respect and thoughtful consideration."
I agree with this, and would hold my step-mother as an example. I must state however that you can not use that truth as a denial of the parallel -
"I find many people of strong secular (read atheist or agnostic) beliefs to be both of extraordinary moral character and to have a personal sense of peace and a deep well-spring of joy. That is, I believe, deserving of respect and thoughtful consideration."
That I believe is equally true.
I also want to restate clearly that religiosity or depth of belief in any religion does not a priori indicate greater morality or higher moral standard. I have no doubt in my mind that there are as many "Graeme Caple"s about in this world as there are potential "Hitler"s.
p.s. I hope that I am not going to be the only responder to your challenge - how embarrassing would that be!
p.p.s. Getting into specifics - such as abortion - is always a mistake I believe if you want to keep a discussion of "morality" as a principle on track. So that you know, I accept abortion in the first trimester as a valid choice; the second trimester I have qualms over; the third trimester is murder except in the most extreme of cases - like the fetus was provably fathered by an alien. With respect it is perhaps a shame that you made mention of it, and that I have replied.
"I choose the totalitarin communists and the Nazi's as my examples of evil that can result of to much trust in one's own reason precisely because they are the most extreme examples of this."
Leaving out one's political beliefs for the moment, and the truth of your statement in other respects, this statement of yours bugs me immensely. I did not comment in my previous swag simply because I wanted to reflect and moderate my thoughts before opening mouth.
Taking the communist example first.
The "general" statement was, I think, that "religion is the opiate of the masses". What communism did (as a system), I believe, was to replace "religion" with "the state". Put "the state" in the place of "god" - and then follow your noses.
Second, and more important to me, is the implication that those subject to communist rule are a priori "bad people". I have sitting at the desk next to me at work a delightful young lady who was raised under the communist system in Russia. I see nothing, absolutely nothing, of the immorality that you ascribe to the communist system in that person.
Similarly, to ascribe the immoralities of a megalomaniac like Hitler to the German people is a similar generalisation that can not be sustained.
I have no problem with your selection of individuals from communist regimes (Lenin and even more so Stalin or Pol Pot), or from Nazi Germany (Hitler, Eichmann, Goering, Mengele) to illustrate the point. I would agree with your assessment that those individuals were immoral or worse people. I would NOT deduce however that that immorality stemmed in large part from being atheist or agnostic.
What your statement does is to erroneously and unjustifiably colour the general population who lived under those regimes with the moral and mental defects of the individual leaders.
Look at it this way. If history in 60 years time were to say conclusively that GWB was a megalomaniac and war criminal, would you then think it fair that everybody who voted for GWB must also have those same character defects? I think that would be wrong, and so would you I suspect.
Probligo...
I see you've found a topic you're more familiar with. Dave, this is a very interesting post, which unfortunately, I don't have the time to read in its entirety. My only suggestion/opinion would come in a statement concerning the most evil being of them all, none other then the emminent Karl Marx. It would be interesting to note that Marx was a great authority on maralism and a big defender of humanistic values, values such as the ones defended by probligo. By the way, Bush is in no way a mass murderer. He has defended minorities in Iraq, quite literally saving thousands if not millions of innocent lives in the process. If he has killed some terrorists in the process, the more the merrier!
Regreg23,
First, you are obviously another who can not consider a principle without having concrete examples to play with. The idea of using a "what if" to develop an illustration is something that you can not handle.
Second, not once have I tried to justify or excuse the excesses of the men of evil that have been mentioned.
Third what I HAVE been saying is that the generalisation that equates all Germans with Hitler, or all Russians with Stalin, or all Cambodians with Pol Pot IS FALSE, IT IS AN ERROR, IT IS UNSUPPORTABLE!!!
What such a generalisation says (and Dave, the bluntness here is aimed at Regreg23) is like saying -
"everything that swims in the sea is a fish. Therefore whales are a fish"
If you are unable to comprehend that, then perhaps the American education system has a lot more to answer for than I thought.
I don't believe I ever stated, or even implied, that all Rusians under the Soviet Government or all Germans under the Nazi government were evil or immoral.
In the original post I used the word 'adherents' which means a supporter, someone who is actively promoting that philosophy. I believe both Communism and Nazism to be immoral philosophies. They both celebrate the triumph of Man over previous foolishness and superstition and promise a utopian future based upon their superior understanding of the world. As a result of this superior understanding, all the old traditions and previous morality can be swept away to allow the birth of the 'brave new world.'
This belief exactly illustrates the point I am trying to make, that we must be humble and respect tradition and understand that, brilliant though we may be, we may be wrong. The horrors of the Nazi and Communist regimes show us just how wrong we can be.
Whenever I hear anyone call for doing away with all superstition and belief in traditional morality because of man's ability to use his intellect to understand how the world works, I hear behind their words the gulags and concentration camps.
Dave, we meet and agree at the point you make. There are bad folks who are not religious. You could, if you want, add a whole host of others to your list.
How about Verwoerd for a starter? Devout member of the Dutch Reform Church... and architect of the "separate development" policies of apartheit.
Or you could try Pinochet - I very much doubt that he was atheist, Catholic would be a good bet. None of the bio I found was specific... What was specific was his policies of imprisonment and murder of "left wing radicals" including much of the professional classes of Chile.
How about Milosivic? His father was a (defrocked - I guess for breaking celibacy law) priest. I can not believe that he ws atheist - again the bio info I can find is short on the matter.
Other names come to mind - Marcos, Peron...
Were all of these people who believed that "rationality" was greater than "religion"?
You know, I really do have my doubts. I think the furthest that you can go is to say -
"There is good folks and there is bad folks. There is religious folks and there is non-religious folks. Where they come from and what they believe is immaterial. There is good folks and there is bad folks."
So, in terms of trying to define a morality, the use of specific examples is more self-defeating than assistance.
The basic point that you are trying to make - that religious folks (and I begin to hear a specific note in here of "Christian" religious folks) are more moral than others. I don't believe I can agree with that.
"And so, more by luck and chance I have arrived where I start – my right, my ability, my responsibility, to stand apart from any formal religion and say “This is what I believe, this is what I am.” For as long as I observe the behavioural requirements of this society, then I will be permitted to continue on this path.
As long as I have this path, this right, this responsibility, I will face choices.
If those choices are removed, replaced by certainties, then those certainties will come either from the state (as in communism) or from the church (as in theocracies). "
Dave, I went back to my "On being subject to law" and dug this out.
When I wrote this, I saw myself standing in the middle of a major intersection. The roads that met at that point were -
Freedom
Religious belief
Morality
Society
Personal responsibility
In no way could I get past the inter-relationship of all of those factors, nor could I simplify them further.
ps before someone picks me up on it - "religious belief" can include the belief that there is no supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent being that does or does not guide the feet of man.
I didn't feel a need to document the mistakes people have made in religious zealotry. I believe that is well known and often commented on.
I don't think most of your examples are very good illustrations of that however. Most of those people, whatever faith they pretend at, seem to follow no particular moral code whatsoever, merely taking what they can take, and doing what they can do.
While such people can be monsterous, for the most part they have little bearing on this discussion. What I am more interested in is people who believe they are following a moral code, but end up being monsterous, our causing horrible effects in spite of that. Those who, apparently try to make the right choice, but fail.
I place Stalin in the former category for example. He seemed relatively untroubled by any pretense of morality. Marx and Lenin though appear to be in the former category. They believed strongly that they were doing the right thing, helping to create a better world, but their pride created a system that was bound to be monsterous.
They failed to apply humility to their reason.
Verwoed is a good example of someone who exercised far too much belief, and not enough reason about right and wrong. He, like Lenin, probably believed he was doing the moral thing, with monsterous result.
I don't believe I have ever said that I only have respect and admiration for Christians, although I will freely admit that the vast majority of people of faith that I have known and admired are Christians. Certainly I have a deeper understanding of Christian theology than other religions.
I also have not claimed that only Christians or religious people of any demonination can be moral, or even that they are the only people that are moral. In my original post I stated that two things were needed for a proper morality: Exercise of one's intellect to try and determine right from wrong, and humility (which leads to caution) about any decision that radically deviates from societal norms. Certainly there are many people of faith who fail in one or both of these attributes.
Proper exercise of faith does seem to develop these attributes however, and a disproportionate number of those people I find to be of high moral character are also deeply religious. I would also note, and I do not think it unconnected, that those people also seem happier than most.
Well, Dave, I reckon it something of a shame that your excellent start to discuss morality (as a principle) has become a vehicle for political statement.
If ever you want to try this again, I will listen.
Can I suggest, though, that if you do take the subject on again that you should approach it from the point of view of moral structures rather than resorting to "good vs evil" and specific example. I have no problem with the "examples" of evil that you give apart from the fact that you then tend to politicise the accompanying morality. That I think is a mistake.
Isn't it you liberals that say 'the personal is political?'
I don't believe one can discuss morality in any meaningful way without discussing good and evil (or right and wrong if you prefer.) That is what morality is all about. What you should do and why you should do that.
Perhaps you could explain to me what you mean by moral structures.
I believe that the most important lapses in morality are those that relate to politics. One person's mistakes can be very harmful, but a governement based upon improper morality can be deeply destructive.
I firmly believe Communism to be a faulty moral philosophy that is by it's very nature destructive to individuals, and freedom. This is what I call evil.
Obviously you believe that America's moral decision in going to Iraq was wrong, although the moral basis for that escapes me, nonetheless, if you had good reasons for such a thing (rather than just accusations) it would be proper to bring them up in a subject or morality.
"Obviously you believe that America's moral decision in going to Iraq was wrong, although the moral basis for that escapes me, nonetheless, if you had good reasons for such a thing (rather than just accusations) it would be proper to bring them up in a subject or morality."
No. I believe that the justifications, the obfuscations, the prevarications, the subsequent twisting of the truth were immoral. I have always said that Iraq2 was the "right" thing to do. It was the lies and deceit that "justified" it to the rest of the world that was the primary immorality. It was the attitude that started with "You are either with us or against us in this" that was wrong if not verging on immoral.
"Perhaps you could explain to me what you mean by moral structures".
Your Ten Commandments are a "moral structure". So too is "The Golden Rule". So are any of the cultural foundations, the precepts that (in theory at least) govern behaviour within a society. They exist in Islam, in Bhuddism, in Taoism, in Hindu, in the traditional beliefs of the Maori. EVERY culture, EVERY society, has its fundamental rules. They are inescapable. The society, the culture would not exist without them.
How many of the people who argue for greater freedoms, for less government regulation, use (as justification for their stance) examples that could be interpreted as in breach of the Ten Commandments? "Thou shalt not kill" and the Second Amendment comes to mind. We have debated the to and fro of that before; I accept that we must agree to differ. But if you want a concrete example to argue on morality that might be a good place to start. Not with all of the religious detail that might move a mountain one way or another - just the very fundamental principle
Or how about "Thou shalt not steal", and the debate going on about the "right" to steal recorded music through the internet in breach of copyright law. When is "stealing" not really "stealing"?
"I believe that the most important lapses in morality are those that relate to politics. One person's mistakes can be very harmful, but a government based upon improper morality can be deeply destructive."
Well there we start to differ. My cynicism on matters politic will tell you that I agree with the general thrust of what you say. But if your statement has universal truth, then it is far past time that Americans started looking at the morality of the government that they have.
Post a Comment
<< Home