[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: