NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24825

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 5.3 KB

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24825 talk.religion.misc:25016
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!olivea!charnel!rat!zeus!hertz.elee.calpoly.edu!jmunch
From: [e-mail] (John Munch)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:34:21 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (John Munch)
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Lines: 85

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (WooYoung Chung) writes:
>                   [ All the stuff from earlier posts deleted ]
>
>Well, John, I can think of two reasons why we still need to relate
>morality with religion.  The first reason is the natural course of human
>development.  For example, you pointed out that we could communicate
>with children on the true value of "just" behaviors.  I am not certain
>that is all that practical.  It takes certain mental maturity to grasp
>the the value of justice (not that I am that mature :-))
>
>Chidren and "young adults" are not likely to have this maturity.  They
>are more likely to exhibit ego-centric thinking and behaviors. (You
>know, very young children sometimes try to hide from others by covering
>their own eyes.  That sort of self-centered [without any negative
>connotation] thinking lasts for awhile in more subtle ways)  In fact, some
>portion of population just don't grow into higher level of moral
>development (from reward and punishment oriented behavior to understanding
>the value of justice)

You make a lot of good points here, but I just don't agree with your
ultimate conclusion. I agree that children and young adults are still
going through a lot of mental development, and some people never
develop understanding of the value of "just" behavior. To me this lends
to my argument that the parent needs to continually explain the value
of just behavior, answer the child's questions, and set a good example.
I don't think the child needs to be told that if they don't behave
"right" then they'll fry in hell.  I think its far more productive to
teach the child to be an interacting responsible member of society.
This means teach the child that they are responsible for the
consequences of their actions. The hard part is teaching the child
what most of the consequences are. In your example I would tell the
child, "I can still see you when you cover your eyes because my eyes
are different eyes than your eyes." Then I'd try to answer any questions
she had. I think many of the "wrong" behaviors can be understood by the
child by asking the child how they would feel if someone behaved that
way toward them. I remember a story I read when I was little. It was
about a chicken who was younger and smaller than all the other chickens
he lived with. All the other chickens pecked him because he was at the
bottom of the pecking order. One day there was a new chicken that was
even younger and smaller than he was. All the other chickens pecked them
both, but he refused to peck the new chicken, because he knew how it
felt. This story taught me at a very young age, compassion for other
humans and animals too. The reason the story impressed me was that it
told the story from the point of view of getting pecked. I learned that
due to the nature of the social contract, it was of benefit to me to
behave "justly". Every time someone told me I should behave as god
wanted me to, I felt like god was just some bully.

>
>Well, the second issue is the nature of modern culture, more specifically
>the western culture that we live in.  Human psyche can be divided into
>two parts: self-image and "I".  The self-image is the image of oneself
>that he/she uses to carry on everyday life.  The image of what we are and
>what is important to us.  "I" is the part of our psyche that allows us
>to reflect on our behaviors and thinking (I believe it is called
>reflexive monitoring.)
>
>This ability of reflexive monitoring allows us to find the value of
>justice and sympathy for others etc.  Yet, the culture we live in
>discourages people from thinking about ourselves (the meaning of life
>etc.)  We live in a very "science" orineted society.  Highly
>compartmentalized business organizations are dominating our
>lives and our social structure, and most of all the way we think.
>Loud music and highly stimulating mass entertainments allows to
>spend our time not thinking about the issues such as justice, life
>etc.
>
>I am not claiming that the whole population is completely under
>this influence; but a large part of our population is under some
>degree of influence.  Religion does provide practical moral guidelines
>for these people, combining these guidelines with little bit "threat",
>little of "secure" feeling, etc.
>
>What do you think?
>
You make a great argument here. All I can say is that people do have the
option of not living under these influences, and start to think for
themselves. I don't even own a TV. I think the compartmentalizing that
you speak of is partly due to christianity. "...let not thy left hand
know what thy right hand doeth." Basically, I agree that for people who
are too weak or lazy to think for themselves, religion is a good
alternative. I hope there is someway to help them strengthen mentally.
What do you think?

                       -John David Munch