[lit-ideas] Re: Inner Moral :Law
- From: John Wager <johnwager@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:50:51 -0500
Ursula Stange wrote:
Interesting post. If faith were required for 'knowing' right from
wrong, we'd be hard pressed to find people without faith morally
guilty of some of the most heinous crimes. We could still lock them
away, of course, for their and our good, but we couldn't find them
morally responsible. (So, instead of penitentiaries, we would have
re-education camps...)
That's the reason religious people usually don't claim that one must be
religious to KNOW the difference between right and wrong. And it's the
reason religious people claim that moral punishment can be metted out to
non-believers. If the only way for someone to know the difference
between right and wrong is to become a believer in a particular
religion, it would be logically impossible to require all NON-believers
to live up to a moral code that they don't believe in. (I make this
statement knowing full well that quite a few believers on the religious
right seem to be doing this, especially in the abortion debate.) The
main reason the Catholic tradition has taken the "lead" in the
anti-abortion movement is that the Catholic view is abortion can be seen
as immoral based on purely scientific evidence, not based on Biblical
prohibitions. Of course that doesn't exactly seem convincing to many
non-believers.
This has the same kind of barbs as the discussion of free will and
moral responsibility. Students are always most appalled by the
thought that child molesters could be 'not guilty.' But of course,
in that case also, society is justified in locking them away for the
safety of the community.
Also interesting is Kant's assertion that 'the moral law within' is
the best (perhaps only) evidence we have for the existence of God, the
implication being that God planted the moral law within each of us,
faithful or not. Instant responsibility.
I think Kant treats religion very traditionally here; one does not need
to believe in life after death, etc. to KNOW the "moral law," but
believing in them gives one more strength to DO the moral law; if one
believes in punishments and rewards of religion, one has more zeal in
following the moral law. That's pretty much Augustine's view too.
Of course in his case, Augustine goes on at great length showing just
how "rotten" he has been in his life, doing things ke knew were wrong,
and doing them anyway, despite not having a good reason for doing them.
He even STOLE SOME PEARS when he was out one night!!! Horror of
horrors!! Those pears have been the primary example of the "corruption"
of human nature ever since. Augustine says that late one night when he
was maybe 15 years old, with a bunch of his guy friends he climed a
fence and stole some pears, even though he had better, sweeter pears at
home. He says he stole them not for any good reason, or any reason that
seemed good to him at the time, but JUST TO DO SOMETHING BAD, KNOWING IT
WAS BAD. That was the bothersome thing; even though he KNEW there was
nothing at all to be gained by stealing the pears, he did so anyway.
The Greeks' view (including Aristotle and Plato) was that one did wrong
thinking, mistakenly, that some good would come out of that wrongdoing.
But here's Augustine saying he did wrong knowing that NO good would come
from it, yet doing it anyway. The model for all fire and brimstone
preachers ever since--Humans are so corrupt and sinful that they cannot
hope to avoid doing wrong without throwing themselves on God's mercy and
praying for divine strength.
Do those who think religion is required for morality assume 'any'
religion or Christianity? The ten commandments? How silly.
Perhaps some will be interested in the 'other' ten commandments....
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html
One doesn't have to go outside the Jewish sources to get at least two
other versions.
See here:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewten02.htm#0E0
Or here:
http://www.thehappyheretic.com/7-99.htm
And there are lots of examples of religious beliefs affecting law that
seem to be based not on the "ten" commandments but one of the other
"commandments" in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.. For example, the
ultra-conservative right likes to quote Exodus 22:18 and 22:19:
22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
But they don't seem to place as much weight on Exodus 22:21 or 22:22:
22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were
strangers in the land of Egypt.
22:22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
And my FAVORITE seems to be ignored by almost everybody, Exodus 21:17:
21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be
put to death.
There are a great number of variations among Christian denominations,
and the liberal branches usually take a more relaxed view of these, but
all branches of Christianity (save Unitarianism) would agree that being
a "believer" gives one more strength in doing good than one has if one
is not a believer. The most liberal branches would only give some
weight to this difference, while the most conservative would claim that
one is completely helpless to do what one knows to be good without God's
help, but they all agree that belief does help in doing good.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: