When a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim talks about morality I fear that all too often he or she does not really mean a personal sense of right or wrong that many see as the real form of morality.
I fear that he is not talking about personal ability to judge what would be the most beneficial way of action for one’s near and dear ones or even for one's society, but he really means just plain old unquestioning submission to authority.
However, fundamentalists dress this submission up as some kind of 'absolute morality' where religious moral codes are of some kind of 'divine origin' and cannot therefore be questioned at all.
Things that are seen as moral and immoral in Christianity or in the even more un-evolved Islam have, however, changed immensely during their existence.
For example for hundreds of years owning slaves was seen as a quite moral thing in both religions to do. Also only a few hundred years ago burning old ladies on big bonfires ceased to be a highly moral thing to do.
The plain truth is that this ‘divinely’ ordained morality has always been created by mortal men. It has always changed according to the current requirements of the society, as all morality basically do exist to protect society and its members from behavior that can harm the harmonious co-existence of its members.
There can't be a society without a moral code in use, as it would fall down very rapidly. There is only the question about its origins; is morality derived from outside the humanity or is morality something humans themselves create to further the interests of their societies and through this also to ensure the happiness of their own family and ultimately of themselves?
The fundamentalist approach of unquestioning obedience to all rules has some clear-cut advantages. It makes accepting the current moral norms automatic and if these claims are accepted at face-value, a automated response to moral problems is created that can be beneficial for a individual facing moral dilemmas.
A big thing in this religiously motivated morality is that not being able to question the basis of what is currently deemed as moral or immoral eases the mental load of a individual.
A person can rely blindly on tradition without a need to really analyze ones actions at all. Many people find this very liberating, as really answering questions concerning morality can be very difficult in many cases.
In fact a person can return to a status of a child with the fundamentalist approach. A child has the ability unquestioningly accept all that is handed to him by persons in positions of authority.
Many find this kind of situation extremely liberating, when they are relieved from the need to make personal choices and decisions in difficult issues.
Freedom is much more difficult in this respect than a state of submission, as a free person is held accountable to his or her own decisions.
The cat is however often out of the bag when one realizes that these religious rules are in fact laid out by ordinary human beings, who all too often use the their Holy Texts as only as vehicles for furthering their own prejudices and conservative agenda.
On the other hand there are of course also a lot of progressive and well-meaning, warm-hearted people also who see adopting the Christian or Islamic morality as a good short-cut to ensure a better and healthier living and especially as a tool in ensuring that the coming generation does not fall outside the civil society.
We are in fact facing a dilemma here; do the dangers inherent in automatic submission to authority out-weight the benefits gained from such a system, when we know that this kind of submission can save some people from falling outside the society?
This is a tough question and I do understand the pain of people from have put their faith in this system and who feel threatened by those who reveal the human origins of their faith.
A very basic problem is that the automatic submission built in this system falls easily apart when the real nature of religions as man-made ideologies is revealed to a person.
So a system based on absolute submission cannot really flourish in a situation with a fully free flow of information in place. The worst part is that striving to curb the flow of information will inevitably foster undemocratic and totalitarian tendencies and undemocratic and totalitarian societies tend to fall behind in overall development.
A system that ensures that our sons would not fall into drug-use and would keep our daughters home on the evenings sounds like a very tempting preposition, if only it would really work.
There is however no guarantee that it will work in the end and there is also a heavy price to be paid.
A very real danger is that this requirement gives all too much power to people who in many cases are drawn from the ultra-conservative fringes of the society.
The fundamentalists all too often oppose equality, social justice and even the very basic freedoms in society that so many of us take for granted.
Relying on a religious ideology to supply the needed basis for morality has also the very clear danger that the base for this version morality disappears, when one loses faith in the ideology itself.
If this happens a person is all too easily left hanging in thin air on moral issues.
However, I would suggest that there is are alternatives for building a true sense of morality in young people which does not require submission to just one religious ideology.
In a world where multicultural societies are becoming the norm, also the idea of morality supported in a society cannot be tied to a single overwhelming ideology like a dogmatic monotheistic religion anymore.
I think much is already gained if a person learns from his or her earliest childhood that families, kindergartens, schools and societies have rules that are in place to protect all their members besides the need to ensure their smooth working.
It would be important also to learn that all societies all over the world have quite have similar rules for quite similar reasons. If a person understands that these rules are in place because we all will benefit from them one goal is reached.
A small victory is won if he or she also understands that a person can also work try to change these rules, if he or she feels that they the rules are somehow wrong.
When a person really also learns to understand that 'do others what you want others to do to you' is a universal, golden rule of all human societies, that is not only part of a single religious ideology, I think the risk of losing the sense of morality by losing faith in a single ideology is a lot smaller.
If young people ultimately could learn to help and protect all other humans just because of their common shared humanity, we could just have reached a new level in morality.
I would claim this level of universal humanity is unattainable in more fundamentalist versions of religions at least, where the circle of those who belong to the group of 'us' is often frighteningly small and all other humans are classed as 'them' who deserve no respect from the believers.
I would even claim that a strong input of universal humanistic ethics in kindergartens and schools would give children a very strong basis for building a real personal sense of morality, if it would be done in all seriousness and in a way a child can really relate to.
To finish this thing off, here is a fine example of how universal humanistic thinking can work:
"Ten Humanist Commandments
By Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay
1. Proclaim the natural dignity and inherent worth of all human beings.
2. Respect the life and property of others.
3. Practice tolerance and open-mindedness towards the choices and life styles of others.
4. Share with those who are less fortunate and mutually assist those who are in need of help.
5. Use neither lies, nor spiritual doctrine, nor temporal power to dominate and exploit others.
6. Rely on reason, logic and science to understand the Universe and to solve life's problems.
7. Conserve and improve the Earth's natural environment - land, soil, water, air and space - as humankind's common heritage.
8. Resolve differences and conflicts cooperatively without resorting to violence or to wars.
9. Organize public affairs according to individual freedom and responsibility, through political and economic democracy.
10. Develop one's intelligence and talents through education and effort."
From: "The Code for Global Ethics: Ten Humanist Principles" Prometheus Books, (ISBN: 978-1-61614-172-1), 2010.
I think humaniostic values are the ONLY rational base for ethics
No comments:
Post a Comment