RE: pop morality
January 27, 2016 at 3:25 pm
(This post was last modified: January 27, 2016 at 4:17 pm by Jenny A.)
@ Dritch
Just assuming for the sake of argument, that there is a god (and that is a rather big assumption), at what point in time have people ever agreed about what god's righteousness is? Man's conception of god's will appears as variable over time as man's morals. You may argue that you know, but I fail to see how your view is superior to that of other Christians here and now, elsewhere, or past. If the standard is unknowable, than it is of no practical use.
You see, the extreme variability of man's understanding of god's will suggests that god's will is an idea created by man to bolster particular men's views of morality and nothing more. It's better to leave god out of it, as then we can discuss what morality is best in a rational manner.
I suggest this standard: on any given moral question the rule should be that which a person who is not yet born and does not yet know what his race, gender, sexual orientation, or place in society will be would consider to be the best rule. Applying this standard requires dispassion and reason, and would result in fairness. I will not hold my breath for the standard to be applied though because our morality is not entirely born of reason. It is a product of empathy, which is why our moral standards are higher with regard to those we know or can otherwise identify with, than it is with regard for those we don't know or can't identify with. The "other" is always given less rights be it because they differ in income, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, language, profession, or dress. Biblical morality demonstrates this clearly. Hebrews are expected to treat those they identify with (other Hebrews) better than those they don't (everyone else). The adult male Hebrews writing the OT naturally give more rights to adult male Hebrews. The adult Christian men writing the NT naturally give more rights to adult Christian men. Naturally, they denigrated the rights of Jewish men who rejected Christianity.
Far from behaving better when applying god's standard, people use god's standard to justify their lack of empathy for others. Thus, the differing standards for: the chosen people versus all other people; my gender versus other genders; people of my faith versus people of other faiths; people of different incomes versus people of my income and so on. Selfish people have used god's standard to justify everything from socialism (easily justified by Jesus's teachings) to capitalism (easily justified based on god's obvious preference).
Just assuming for the sake of argument, that there is a god (and that is a rather big assumption), at what point in time have people ever agreed about what god's righteousness is? Man's conception of god's will appears as variable over time as man's morals. You may argue that you know, but I fail to see how your view is superior to that of other Christians here and now, elsewhere, or past. If the standard is unknowable, than it is of no practical use.
You see, the extreme variability of man's understanding of god's will suggests that god's will is an idea created by man to bolster particular men's views of morality and nothing more. It's better to leave god out of it, as then we can discuss what morality is best in a rational manner.
I suggest this standard: on any given moral question the rule should be that which a person who is not yet born and does not yet know what his race, gender, sexual orientation, or place in society will be would consider to be the best rule. Applying this standard requires dispassion and reason, and would result in fairness. I will not hold my breath for the standard to be applied though because our morality is not entirely born of reason. It is a product of empathy, which is why our moral standards are higher with regard to those we know or can otherwise identify with, than it is with regard for those we don't know or can't identify with. The "other" is always given less rights be it because they differ in income, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, language, profession, or dress. Biblical morality demonstrates this clearly. Hebrews are expected to treat those they identify with (other Hebrews) better than those they don't (everyone else). The adult male Hebrews writing the OT naturally give more rights to adult male Hebrews. The adult Christian men writing the NT naturally give more rights to adult Christian men. Naturally, they denigrated the rights of Jewish men who rejected Christianity.
Far from behaving better when applying god's standard, people use god's standard to justify their lack of empathy for others. Thus, the differing standards for: the chosen people versus all other people; my gender versus other genders; people of my faith versus people of other faiths; people of different incomes versus people of my income and so on. Selfish people have used god's standard to justify everything from socialism (easily justified by Jesus's teachings) to capitalism (easily justified based on god's obvious preference).
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.