RE: Subjective Morals and Societal Whims
May 25, 2017 at 12:49 am
(This post was last modified: May 25, 2017 at 12:50 am by Bunburryist.)
One of the biggest mistakes in much of the "morality" and "ethics" talk is the belief that people do much of what they do for ethical or moral reasons. As is often the case in conservative positions, that position takes something very complex (human society, history, economics, individual personality, genetic predisposition, just to name a few) and condenses it down to some freeze-dried set of rules. How often - in real everyday life - do people think, "Gee, what moral reason do I have to do or not do this act?" One interesting argument against that view is that I never, ever think "Is this or that act morally right," and yet I seem to pretty much stay out of trouble and my life goes along pretty well. How can that be if I never consider the "morality" of an act.
Another point, is that any choice based on morals implies an endless internal debate. Should I steal? Does that mean never? How about if my children are starving? What if they're just kind of starving? At what degree of starvingness does it become okay to steal? What if it's someone elses kids who are starving? Then there's the difference between people of the same belief. How much should a person donate? 10%? Should a working person with 10 kids donate the same percentage of his income as someone who has inherited millions of dollars and has no kids? How do you define "working on the Sabbath?" This is why religious criticism is such a never ending pursuit. You could fill volumes with these kinds of questions. At the end of the day, even if religious commandments are really from a God, a person still has to find reasons in his own mind and own life to answer these questions - the same kinds of reasons atheists use to answer questions in their lives. Answers based on one's internal sense of justice, one's experience in life, one's fear of disapproval by society, one's desire to feel good about one's self, one's habitual ethical positions, one's desires to move the social world in some particular direction, etc. See how messy it is.
Another point, is that any choice based on morals implies an endless internal debate. Should I steal? Does that mean never? How about if my children are starving? What if they're just kind of starving? At what degree of starvingness does it become okay to steal? What if it's someone elses kids who are starving? Then there's the difference between people of the same belief. How much should a person donate? 10%? Should a working person with 10 kids donate the same percentage of his income as someone who has inherited millions of dollars and has no kids? How do you define "working on the Sabbath?" This is why religious criticism is such a never ending pursuit. You could fill volumes with these kinds of questions. At the end of the day, even if religious commandments are really from a God, a person still has to find reasons in his own mind and own life to answer these questions - the same kinds of reasons atheists use to answer questions in their lives. Answers based on one's internal sense of justice, one's experience in life, one's fear of disapproval by society, one's desire to feel good about one's self, one's habitual ethical positions, one's desires to move the social world in some particular direction, etc. See how messy it is.
