So, my friend, Jake, and I were sitting at the Dolphin show tonight discussing "what is moral?" or "what determines what is moral behavior?". I'm throwng this out for response, because I really believe that deep down at the root, "morality" is determined by culture. Now there can be many good and true things, and equally bad things, from my perspective, which can be considered moral or immoral. Or there can be concepts. such as "murder" that can be considered "immoral" and therefore punishable by law and community. However, "murder" itself is not an act but a category of crime, which then a society chooses to prohibit. "Killing" is an act that can be determined as "murder" or not. What makes up "murder" is determined by the society. For instance, there is law/community/government that says certain kinds of "killing" are legal. Killing in war is legal (within certain bounds). Killing unborn fetuses is legal (within certain bounds). Killing animals is legal (within certain bounds). However, the "killing" of one private civilian of another is generally not legal and therefore is punishable, sometimes by another legal "killing".
In somes way, I do not believe that we can legislate morality and usually when I am saying such things, I am referring to some sort of religious ethic being taught through government means, or laws on adultery. Civil laws should be support civil society. The problem seems to be that our laws allow more permissiveness in a culture that does not practice restraint. So, it would be great to have a capitalist economic system if people had a socialist ethic, in which they considered the common good above their own (one might argue that this follows a mandate to "love one another as yourself").
Morality truly is a behavior I think, that rises out of belief. For instance, many religious women voluntarily or under compulsion, wear headcoverings (Jewish, Muslim and Christian). In their culture it is moral to cover oneself out of modesty-preserving men from temptation, or a symbol of being under correct authority, honoring themselves, or perhaps even honoring tradition. Therefore a woman in that sub-culture or culture, who does not exhibit this behavior would be thought to be immoral. If I enter that culture, I might cover my head out of respect, particularly to the women. But, also as a Christian, I believe in freedom. Paul talks about a woman's hair being her head-covering. I am also concerned that men should feel liberality with their judgment of women, or that they do not have to guard their hearts (if the hair thing is really causing a problem). I personally, am more concerned that women are not objectified because it debases both men and women. It promotes violence against those that do not adher to the behavior, as well as disdain, which undermine a reality that I believe goes far beyond the behavior or morality issue, which is that I believe humanity (men and women) is made in the image of God. We bear the stamp something very good. I hesitate to say divine because that gets messy. But, it is something more than just dust to dust. Therefore, I am called to treat people as their better self and not degrade them. So, I try not to objectify myself or manipulate others. But, this flows out of a deeper truth than "it is good to be moral" or the pragmaticism of civil society.
Anyways, these are just some thoughts. I don't want to be involved in arguements over morality. It is too divergent in this world. But maybe respect is a good place to start.
Thoughts?
10 comments:
I can't believe no one has commented on this blog topic yet! You stated such definitive and personal opinions that I think some level of argument will be inherent (if people respond at all.) I'm guessing you must be making a distinction between what we call morality as a culture and truth being written on our hearts? Which sounds totally unconnected, but equates to a knowledge that every individaul pocesses of right and wrong. I remember breifly touching on these subjects with you in person. I know personally I see the purpose of govt in part as protecting the rights of its citizens, and intervention makes sense to me when one citizen infringes on another citizens rights. We get lost in the nuances but in part because we like to rationalize, excuse and confuse. I don't think I agree with capital punishment anymore, I can't help but recognize my own capacity for sin and how that unites me with the potential in any other person... I don't think executing a person for their crimes makes sense, keeping them out of society, yes. I wish as fellow humanbeings we truly invested in rehabilitation, I wish we demonstrated a true belief in the possibility of redemption, we love it in our movies and our books, but we reject, loath, fear and fail to understand our criminals. After all, isn't that the promise from Christ that we find so precious? It is often Christians who fail to desplay that same grace they supposedly embrace as the basis of their faith.
Thinking about a global market and capitalism run amok, I'm a fan of regulation. The economy is a form of govt in a way (especially these days with large corporations owning politicians and determining laws...) it can be controlled by tyrants just like any other body.
Thoughts on honoring the "scruples" of other religions. I know I personally revolt against the idea of donning a head scarf so as not to offend, but because I have a different perspective about what is at the base of that tradition. I'm not inclined to honor tradition and I am disgusted by the responsibility being placed on a woman for a mans issues with lust. I think we have had a habit of seeing the man as being more vulnerable to that problem, but lately I've been learning just how much of a problem I have with it myself and suspect other woman do too, otherwise why would romance novels be so popular? He's got his playboy, she's got Danielle Steele. Two different ways to accomplish the same thing, titilation.
Dude, I just noticed that Fawna is in your list of people you wish you knew! If you'd like to join us for coffee some time it can be arranged! :)
Dude, that would be cool... ;)
Umm, I think that no one has commented because I wrote it at last night after 11:00 pm.
Isn't there something about protecting the weaker brother/sister in the Bible? Wouldn't that equate to respecting traditions of devout Muslim women who are seeking God, even if that meant covering our heads so that we could pray with them? Also, you would have to cover your head and perhaps your whole body to see in the inside of a mosque and many of them are architectural wonders (that is of course if someone is breaking the rules and letting infidels step inside a mosque).
Besides, Jewish men also cover their heads in differing degrees from on specific days to all the time. So, what is the difference with women? Except of course, Saint Paul, writing that a women's covering is her hair, but if you interpret that literally, you are going to have to interpret a lot of other things literally.
And yes, I do think that morality is very different from truth. The way we use the word "morality" is different from the way we use the word "truth". The feeling of a "moral" person is very different than a "truthful" person.
On regulation-why is a larger body of sinful (I don't even like to use that word, let's say fallible) individuals imposing their will safer than individuals? Then again, that could be a decent arguement against the validity of the septuagint.
I was also trying to say that there are different reasons that women wear a headcovering-one being modesty and not encouraging another person to sin. That being said, I think that lust will always be a temptation, regardless of what one wears or does (to a great extent). I wonder why there are so many Christian romance novels...hmm...is it not obvious to everyone??
Who defines morality is a sticky subject. C.S. Lewis said that man is inherently evil. I wish had the word for word quote.
Judges come to mind first when it comes to morality. Why? Because they legislate morality from the bench all the time. Last year in Vermont Judge Edward Cashman sentenced 34-year-old Mark Hulett to 60 days in jail. What did he do? He confessed to repeatedly raping a 7 year old girl for for 4 years. Judge Cashman was more concerned about rehabilitating the guy instead of punishing him. This little girl's life will never be the same and might find it difficult to enjoy any physical intimacy in the future. What's the point? When people in power lose their moral compass, we have big problems. I could go and on with Judges legislating morality instead of enforcing the law, but it makes me sick. Should Mark Hulett receive the death penalty. I honestly don't know, I don't have the twisted urges he has nor am I the father of the little girl that was raped for four years. Hopefully we can all agree that 60 days in jail is a joke sentence. Now onto head coverings for women.
I have respect for women who are aware of the way they can impact men, and try to limit that impact. I also think the whole "romance novels" analogy is an interesting one. I would guess that both men and women deal with lust and temptation. The problem is a culture has been created that encourages women to be flashy, look seductive, and to not respect themselves unless they look like Pamela Anderson (which I'm honestly not impressed with, but she seems to be the poster child of this though). So one one hand, men complain that women are to tempting, but on the other hand men hold women up to the Pamela Anderson standard.
So you pick Pamela Anderson, eh? Interesting choice. Glad you are not that impressed... I think she might have had some work done.
Do flashy women (or flashy men) respect themselves? I don't think so. I think that they are wielding their "ability" to conform to an objectified idealzation that truly disrespects people at their core when that is all that we see (or allow ourselves to see-which in that case makes us culpable). Did that sentence make any sense what-so-ever??
I think this judge's ruling is actually a violation of our morality, if we say the norms of morality are culturally based. I have to believe that the majority of Americans would say that child molestation is wrong and that the judgement of 60 days was also wrong. It also violates other girls/women by saying that it is ok for this type of violation. And I just want to say that I believe our system should rehabilitate, but society's common good and the attempt to limit the harm of a violater, should be priority over rehabilitation. Anyways, any other thoughts on morality? Perhaps a little lighter? Do you think throwing your plastic in the garbage is moral or should we recycle everythng? Who should be responsible for recycling-the producer/company, the consumer, the government municipalities, or another entity like a non-profit??
Sorry for the depressing comment, I just get fired up when children are the targets and not defended.
Pamela Anderson is on the bottom of my list actually when it comes to attractive celebrity women. Way at the bottom.
Although I think recycling is good and important, I don't rank it on the list with morals. I can't even defend why at this point, to tired. As for who is responsible? It has to be a joint collaborative effort. There are several fields in the industry alone and I'm sure others could be created. My only recommendation would be for private industry to take the lead. So that love of capitalism comes out sometimes. Companies should work at being more efficient, homes can work at conservation, government can set up centers to aid in the process, and non-profits aren't limited in the expertise and support that could be provided. By the way, I'm not a granola tree hugger. I do believe in conservation though (i.e. turning off lights, controlling water usage, etc.
Scott-I totally appreciate that you get fired up when children are targets-that's how we should all respond. It is such an obvious evil! However, I was just thinking also more about some of the less obvious morals (and perhaps teasing someone who might read this blog about his recycling efforts). I think that often our "sins of omission" cause more harm than things that we point out as harmful (i.e. the impact of coffee grown with pesticides/chemical fertilizers on the farmers and wildlife which we have ignored until late vs. saying that it is immoral to listen to rock music. I suppose it is the ignorance of people that causes these things). By the way, I don't always buy fairtrade-will blog a little on that later.
Here's a question-can we have a concept of morality without a concept of a higher being? I would say "yes" given my construct of morality...but what does anyone else say...or are we bored with this topic?
Nice discussion indeed:
"can we have a concept of morality without a concept of a higher being?"
Yes, you can, however you cannot have a concept of morality without an agreed to and unchanging truth. And considering most religions/theisms/philosophies - man is too wishy washy to define morality within and relative to himself and therefore has to have an external and over-encompassing stimuli/stimulus with which to attach a "moral" center to.
That all being said, just trusting God makes things a lot less of a burden since culture's definition of morality changes every 25-50 years with the exception of those things relating to murder.
Back to the OT:
The only way that a government cannot be held to legislate moral liberties is if/when people (and/or the greater majority of them) decide to live out moral integrity and allow only the civil issues to be addressed when clearly outside of ethical constraints. This is utopia, hence, welcome to shared morality (government + people = relative rules + culture + majority social practice.
Arrrgh, I hate philosophy talking, I get lost all the time in it :)
Nevertheless, how about we all agree to just elect Sarah to Congress and from there let her push buttons and get things done ;) Ain't like I want to claim responsibility for change unless it benefits me completely (sarcasm).
I havn't been back since much was said. Scott, I find a sentence of 6 months for repeated rape offensive. I don't consider that rehabilitation. I think raping and abusing children should be conisidered the most heinous crime and should carry the harshest punishment. True rehabilitation would be responsible and put people back out who are changed.
Considering head coverings, I could not do something that personally offends me, if I believe and recognize that someone is covering their head because they love their god and are sincere I would not be offended and I would not want to offend them, it's improtant to me to judge every situation and respond honestly. I do not respect the traditions of man simply for the sake of tradition, but for an individual is different. I guess I never thought of that principle (protecting the weaker brother) as applying to non-christians?
I didn't say much about regulation, I don't really have a very informed opinion on it, I just know I don't like what I see, large corporations controlling the market and politics and often times keeping out small businesses and reducing options, what we are offered as consumers is all the same. From one shop to another you find a collection of the same products. Variety! That's the word I'm looking for. I don't think I was aware that I was making the conclusions that you stated?
And recycling issues are a mess! You have green people on both sides of the line. I'm almost afraid to find out that there's no point in recycling plastic! I can't stand throwing so much of it out. Personally I can't help thinking it's better to recycle than to let it go to a land fill...
I'd love to see non-profit orginizations doing recycling or reusing programs! I have no idea if it's appropriate to say recycling is a moral act, but I do think we have a responsibilty to take care of the earth.
On morality without higher being- that is essentially what a govt does for a society. I can't help but think of John Brenner (and Kurt) who are both athiests with great personal integrity, you know I prefer the word integrity to morals, something about morals is almost meaningless to me, like it is outside of ones self, but integrity is very personal. John also likes to confuse me by believing in concepts like the worst sin and talking about spirituality. I think I've just topped off...
One more thing, I think my comment about keeping dangerous people away from society was overlooked. I don't want dangerous criminals that are still dangerous out and about harming people.
Post a Comment