Sunday, November 8, 2009

The Consequences of Morality

I think it’s very simple why people do “good” or “bad”: they have free choice.
It’s one of the things I find ridiculous about religion: How can you claim that your religion teaches people to do good, and keeps them on track if you acknowledge that they have free choice? Even if your religion tells people to do good, one’s relationship with their religion, or with God if you will, is an intensely personal thing, and there’s no way of knowing who’s sincere and who isn’t (my guess is no one is sincere, but that’s just me). Everyone is free to believe and act as they like, even if they’re told to do good, because remember, they’re free, so that’s no way to police a society. It’s kind of like saying, “everyone who goes to ninth grade is probably moral” but acknowledging they’re free to act immorally. It’s kind of absurd and cruel too, to tell people that certain people are *probably* moral, when you know good and well that they’re probably not, and you have no way of knowing if they are, in any case.

I think this is one of the greatest challenges to the absurd claim that religion makes people moral (I have yet to meet a single person who religion hasn’t made him *less* moral). What’s the point of free will? And also, what a cruel trick for God to play on humanity. He could have taken away our free will, and eliminated human corruption. Instead, he made us free to choose, and that explains why so many assholes exist. You know who’s fault Hitler is… Oh, silly me, I forgot. God only cares about Jews. Nobody else. Am I allowed to say goyim don’t count? Or is that a Chillul Hashem? Shhhh.

Snarkiness aside, humanists like myself often have a high regard for human nature, no religion necessary. Actually, we find religion often interfering with humanism. Say my father’s brother married a shiksa. Humanism would certainly tell you, by all means, to have a relationship with your brother. Yet religion might tell you to never speak to him again. Interesting. Or humanism might tell you to hang out with your family and break bread with them. Religion might tell you that their food is unkosher, they’re a bad influence on your children, and avoid them unless you can convert them to your faith. What fun!

As I said before, I have a high regard for human nature. You might even say I went from believing in God to believing in people. Decent tradeoff, if you ask me. You go from believing in imaginary (albeit powerful) friends to believing in real ones. I think humans (all humans, by the way. Probably not Garnel though.) have a highly developed moral conscience. We have the ability to teach ourselves to be kind and to treat others with respect. In short, I think we can and do teach ourselves and others morality. Unfortunately, it sometimes comes with strings attached, but even then, it’s all humans teaching humans. Sure, some believe in sky-fairies, but most don’t, and thankfully, no sky fairies are necessary for a healthy moral compass. (Although I’m sometimes tempted to think they *are* necessary for an ass-backwards, corrupt, insane, and above all, unjust one.)

There’s even support for this in the Mishna (Word of God, you know). In Avos (probably the only useful book ever penned by barbarians/rabbis) it says, “The reward for a mitzvah is a mitzvah, and the reward for an aveira is an aveira.” Often, fear of death and hell is dangled in front of believers (do good, you go to heaven. Bad, you go to hell), and if the rabbis believed in the afterlife (and this might be evidence that it’s a later fabrication and plagiarization from other tribal myths) wouldn’t they say so in the Mishna? If you’re going to fry in hell for not praying hard enough, or checking your mezuzas often enough, and oh, also for killing other people, wouldn’t the rabbis say so? Instead, it says your punishment is the aveira itself? What the hell? What kind of morons wrote this thing? Hey, if I’m going to give you a million dollars for something, you think I would find it necessary to give you other reasons?

Perhaps the rabbis sensed a fundamental secret of human nature. Humans don’t need promises of an afterlife, or even divine/rabbinic orders to do what they feel is right and to not do what they don’t feel is right. Say I hurt someone; do something wrong. No one may ever know. But *I* know. And I’ll sleep a little less easy at night, knowing the awful thing I’ve done, and I’ll have a harder time looking myself in the mirror in the morning. Conversely, if I do something thought of as “good”, I’ll sleep a bit more restfully at night. I’ll feel better about myself. I’ll hold my head just a little bit higher as I walk down the street. The reward or punishment for a deed is the deed itself. If I do something bad, I’ll forever be haunted by the memory. If I do something good, I’ll forever be buoyed by the memory. The rabbis tapped into the great secret of human morality: our conscience and guilt. To hell with hell.

Of course, another point to mention is it’s often in my own best interests to do good. If I help a friend, it’s not only for selfless purposes that I do so. And if I feel a sense of connection with all of humanity, why would I want to hurt anyone? So much good can be done for purely selfish purposes as well. My company donates a lot of charity. I’m sure they do it for altruistic purposes, but I’m sure they also have an idea that it does great things for their reputation to be known as a corporation that’s active in the community. A lot of morality is simple win/win strategies, you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours. I put a smile on your face, you put a smile on mine. Remind me why we need religion again?

Update: I just repaid a sixteen year-old favor. I feel like a million bucks.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

i think the problem here is simply one of how do you define good. one mans evil is another mans good. you are a nice guy today, meaning we agree on what behaviour is reasonable or good. but tomorrow you might do something abhorrent to me, but that you think is fine. who would be right in that case?

Off the Derech said...

>one mans evil is another mans good.

Agreed. To Moses, having slaves is just fine. To myself however, it's an extremely immoral thing to do.

Besides, you're confusing two major separate issues, and those are a) who defines what's good? and b) how do we hold others accountable, in short, police them? How do we make sure they behave? Is Big Brother watching? Or are they big enough to be trusted on their own? I'll let you decide.

Off the Derech said...

Besides, what major moral dilemmas do you think religion solves?

Off the Derech said...

And has religion played a part in the advancement of morality, things like the abolishment of slavery, rights of individuals, rights of women, rights of gays, freedom of speech etc? Or has it traditionally been a little slow on these issues? Or remind me what Orthodox views on women, gays, goyim, science, sex and human nature are.

Off the Derech said...

>you are a nice guy today

You don't know that.

Off the Derech said...

Listen to this.

Methinks religious views on human nature are incredibly juvenile, more like retarded.

Anonymous said...

Im not talking about religion. Im talking about what makes something moral. Is it just that i think it is moral. Is Mugabe moral? He thinks he is. its hard to have an objective standard when morality isnt objective.

Off the Derech said...

You sounds suspiciously like Garnel, but I will humor you.

This is a very complicated discussion from a religious point of view. (From my POV it's fairly simple). Essentially, religion has been saying for thousands of years (at least for the last few hundred) that it taught the world morality. I never bought that all the way, and I think while religion discusses morality, among other things, it by no means is the source of any sort of morality.

A few points to ponder: What does you religion teach you that's so moral? Don't kill and steal? Then a) why is there so much other stuff in your religion? Do the 13 ikkarim have anything to do with morality? Don't you think your religion has a lot more to do with one's relationship to God, and only secondarily to humans? and b) do you really think it would have been so difficult for humans to come up with don't kill and don't steal on their own?

The objectivity argument is just another red herring, and it's very misleading. Do you believe what it says in the Torah is absolute? Or is it subject to interpretation? So who has objective morality again? No one. I recall Garnel memorably trying to wiggle his way out of this by saying "our morality is MORE objective." LOL.

Some issues are clear cut, such as killing ANY women and children. (Ahem ahem.) Others, like war and say, abortion, are far more complex, and if we're REALLY careful, I think we can come to some very moral conclusions. That's not to say morality is a free-for-all, and anyone can rightfully label their opinions as "moral", as rabbis are so often tempted to do. rather, it acknowledges that morality is in the hands of humanity anyway (lo bashamayim hi) and seeks to be as moral, virtuous and just as we can possibly be. And besides, guess what? We get to use logic. And no, I don't mean rabbinic logic. None of that ass-backwards religious morality for us. We'll take the very best kind.

Anonymous said...

When i lived in Thailand, i saw a lot of suffering.

What was weird was that the general populace didn't really believe in really helping those who were suffering or unfortunate.

It was part of their moral world view that karma dictates peoples life situations. you shouldnt interfere.

After i left, i began to think it as really bad, almost evil. I couldn't stomach what I had been ok with in Thailand.

then i realised that the only reason i felt they were evil, was because that was the way i was brought up and educated. objectively? I didn't know?

then i wondered... why do I think anything is bad? is it only because of the way i was educated? are my feelings or morality all as a result of my conditioning?

so then i got lost in thought about whether we can know anything.

I realised then that the one thing that we can be sure about was that we cant know anything 100%.

But then i realised that knowing that is also impossible. Cos you cant know that if you cant know anything.

So the whole thing makes no sense. I got stuck.

help?

Off the Derech said...

Dude, this is basic science and epistemology. i don't know what you want from my life.

Anonymous said...

im serious. please give me reading to do to get round the point that i mentioned. no philosophy Ive ever read has dealt with it. they all just talk about stupid stuff like "inner moral compass" and bs like that. inner moral compass is the same as " i think this is true because it matches all the tv that ive watched in the last 20 years." its just conditioning.

seriously... any reading on this?

Off the Derech said...

Tell me more about Thailand.

Margo said...

Anon, if you are genuinely interested in reading philosophy about morality, it shouldn't be difficult to find. Try Nietzsche, Hume, Mill, Kant, Benedict, Pojman, Aristotle, Darwin, Plato, Hobbes, Rand, Singer, Shikwati, Arthur, to pull just a few names that I have personally read or skimmed. There are many many more that I have not read, and any university Ethics textbook should have a sampling of at least a few different approaches.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Margo. Ive read a lot of the authors you mention, although not all of them. i was focusing on a specific point of stalemate that ive reached in my own understanding, specifically how relativist thinking deals with the issue of conditioning in terms of it undermining the value of any given conclusion. I have not yet found a solution to this profound challenge. I think that its probably just an unproved assumption that they all work with, and that its a "this is what we think, take it or leave it" type of thing.

As for Thailand, well, its interesting. I spent my time in the north, in the cities of Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai. People dont really speak English, and it was culturally challenging. almost any point of cultural norm is challenged there. They just seem to do everything the opposite way that we do. BUt they are respectful, open to differences, traditional minded and very hard working.

Off the Derech said...

Were you there for ten years or twenty years?

Anonymous said...

not, not long at all. like a few weeks. why did you think i was there for 20 years?

Off the Derech said...

It's just that I'm not used to hearing life stories from anonymous commenters.

Anonymous said...

ok. any news on the relativism/conditioning question at all?

Post a Comment

Please be respectful.