Morality and religion (or lack thereof)

[Anonymous]

Swim – I think there’s a lot of variation in thresholds for both “Authority” and “Purity” in our current society, which is why they don’t resonate as being universal. According to Haidt, they are universal in that all groups and individuals have some things they consider “pure” or “impure” and some reverred figures they consider to be authorities. However, my authorities are not your authorities and vice-versa. For some, Hillary Clinton is deserving of utmost respect as an authority. For others, she is worthy of derision. But, is that authority or just community (a community of feminists or liberals or female politicians) masquerading as authority? Likewise with the Pope. For some, he is the most authoritative human on the planet. But others (Sinead O’Connor) consider him the symbol of corruption and subjugation. Yet, Sinead O’Connor probably has her own reverred authorities (Bono? James Joyce?). Purity is an interesting one. Where many vegetarians would object to meat as “harm” to animals, vegans might go so far as to say food is “impure” than has animal byproducts – they are repulsed by it. There’s a restaurant in Japan that is exploring this taboo – it is a toilet-themed restaurant. The meals are served in toilets and shaped to look like fecal matter. This to me is further evidence that people have too much extra money on their hands, when they are spending it on toilet food.

There are some who would claim that Purity and Authority are not universal because those who lean politically left don’t recognize or agree with the right on what is “pure” or who the “authorities” are – I would say both sides have their own ideas of both purity (e.g. veganism vs. chastity) and authority (e.g. Ghandi vs. NASA), and they simply differ.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

There are some who would claim that Purity and Authority are not universal because those who lean politically left don’t recognize or agree with the right on what is “pure” or who the “authorities” are – I would say both sides have their own ideas of both purity (e.g. veganism vs. chastity) and authority (e.g. Ghandi vs. NASA), and they simply differ.

Yeah, the issue isn’t what the nature of the Purity or Authority is, just that they exist.

So for me, this begs the question what contributes to the 5 instincts? Are we just evolutionarily programmed this way? At some point in our history, before we realized we could cooperate to elevate society, was fairness an issue, or was this instinct developed after we started cooperating? If it’s the latter, then I wonder what other instincts will crop up in the future, or maybe more importantly, which instincts will go away in the future?

In the past, many philosophers advocated utilitarianism (before deontology came about). Had this ideology taken over, maybe the purity instinct would have gone away?

[Anonymous]

Good points everyone. Growing up on the religious side of things, I naturally looked at non-believers as less moral. I think that’s one of the big mistakes we make when dealing with non-religious people. Not only can non-religious people be just as moral as religious people, but I think many people can even leave their religions because they see religion as immoral.

Lately the question I’m asking myself, though, is “can any human be truly moral?” All of us are so imperfect, religious or non. Swimordie, I liked what you said about group mentality. Just wanted to comment on this quote:

swimordie wrote:

So, inasmuch as 😳 religion is a human community, “looking righteous” will always trump actually “being righteous”. Therefore, it’s not so much that religion is the cause of immorality, rather the human need to “appear” “fair”, “good”, “righteous”, etc. will invariably lead one to being vulnerable to immoral action where that immoral action is necessary to maintain the “image” of morality.

This is very true for most of us – and it’s something that Jesus repeatedly called out. To me it’s one of Jesus’ most beautiful teachings, advocating for truly sincere morality – regardless of whether someone is watching or not. He said that when you pray, pray in secret. When you give, give in secret. When you fast, fast in secret. Don’t do any of these things to get attention from your fellow man. When you are “righteous” for appearance sake, that’s the only reward you get – you get to look good, congratulations. (Matthew 6:2) Those who do it sincerely, however, are rewarded by heaven, according to Jesus. It’s a tough thing to think about. Am I just doing this to look good or am I really sincere?

Maybe that’s what Jesus meant when he said “None is good but God.”

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

There are some who would claim that Purity and Authority are not universal because those who lean politically left don’t recognize or agree with the right on what is “pure” or who the “authorities” are – I would say both sides have their own ideas of both purity (e.g. veganism vs. chastity) and authority (e.g. Ghandi vs. NASA), and they simply differ.

I get what you’re saying, hawk, I guess I see this argument as proof of the “non-instinctual” nature of Purity and Authority. The other three seem beyond the pale of subjectivism, while these last two don’t. Granted, most, or maybe even all, human communities have defined the boundaries of both Purity and Authority, but they seem “learned” rather than instinctual. Meaning, the community grants Authority, not because it’s inherent but, rather, as a continuation of a more primitive construct, like the parent-child relationship.

And, like I said, Purity seems so unbelievably subjective, as to assume that it is “learned” as well.

If the argument is that all human communities define Purity and Authority, not necessarily as instinctive constructs but as common to any and all human communities, or as a “given” in the communal life of the human experience, I can see that these must be included. I’m just not sure that I’m convinced that it must be so. Again, as an avid observer of the actions of the founding fathers of the U.S., I sense that the “need” for authority was superseded by the “sovereignty” of the individual. And, as such, authority and purity were left to the individual to construct for herself. The idea of “self rule”.

Maybe they were too naive, or ambitious to recognize that human communities would always construct the “rules” to be enforced by the “authorities”, as accepted by the majority. But, of course, they intended a built-in mechanism to safe-guard individual sovereignty explicitly to counter this “majority rule” mentality: the courts. Which, by definition, are the guardians of individual liberty and individual responsibility. In a perfect world, the rule of law is intended to maximize individual liberty while ensuring individual responsibility to the community.

In the real world, of course, individual liberty is constrained by the “morality” of the majority while individual responsibility is ceded to the “authorities”, creating a community environment where all ethics must be defined by law or else any and all behavior that is deemed “within the boundaries of the law” cannot be ascribed as unethical. Hence, the “morality” of “whatever is for the good of the shareholders must be ethical” because it does not run afoul of the law.

Health insurance companies are a prime example. Using every tactic to not cover a policy-holder seems unethical, in fact, is unethical. But, as a mechanism for maximizing profit of the company for the good of the shareholders, it is not deemed “unethical” unless an actual law is broken. In this way, I see the ceding of “morality” to “authority”, as a dangerous game which, while potentially being for the good of the community, ultimately undermines the sovereignty of the individual to ascribe “morality”, or “ethics” to the individuals own human experience.

In this way, I see that “authority” usurping the “morality” of “purity”, even when endorsed and supported by the majority of the community, as a paradigm in which the instinctive nature of the human individual to self-construct limits of “morality” or “ethics” is undermined, to the detriment not only of the individual, but also of the community of which that individual is a member.

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

1) if one really believes that there will be an “end” to the earth — soon — then they are much more likely to disregard the care of it today;

2) most religions profess that there are “chosen” people, and secondarily, chosen land for said people. This has led to countless wars and hatred between the people claiming their position and entitlement;

3) when you have the attitude that you are superior to another, because of a proclaimed birthright, can you really be “moral” to another? IOW, can you really live the Golden Rule with that attitude?

I disagree, mostly.

1. People take care of many things, even if they are bound to end or be destroyed eventually. I think they take care of what they feel is important.

2. I don’t think “most” religions profess the chosen people idea. And I think that it is an excuse for, rather than a root cause of, war or hatred.

3. Most religions suggest not having a superior attitude. (Christ specifically railed on the Pharisees for having this attitude, and going on about how they are Abraham’s descendents.)

This post sound a lot like an atheist argument I read. Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris–one of those guys.

Also, I’m new here–I don’t understand the Liahona/Iron Rodder labels…Can someone explain?

[Anonymous]

allquieton wrote:

Rix wrote:

1) if one really believes that there will be an “end” to the earth — soon — then they are much more likely to disregard the care of it today;

2) most religions profess that there are “chosen” people, and secondarily, chosen land for said people. This has led to countless wars and hatred between the people claiming their position and entitlement;

3) when you have the attitude that you are superior to another, because of a proclaimed birthright, can you really be “moral” to another? IOW, can you really live the Golden Rule with that attitude?

I disagree, mostly.

1. People take care of many things, even if they are bound to end or be destroyed eventually. I think they take care of what they feel is important.

2. I don’t think “most” religions profess the chosen people idea. And I think that it is an excuse for, rather than a root cause of, war or hatred.

3. Most religions suggest not having a superior attitude. (Christ specifically railed on the Pharisees for having this attitude, and going on about how they are Abraham’s descendents.)

This post sound a lot like an atheist argument I read. Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris–one of those guys.

Also, I’m new here–I don’t understand the Liahona/Iron Rodder labels…Can someone explain?

Thanks all, for your great responses. I want to respond to more, but I only have a minute now—more later.

First, welcome allquieton! I hope you’ll enjoy it here like I do. Last things first…the “Iron Rod/Liahona” labels were introduced by a BYU Professor in the 60s named Richard Poll. Google him…he gave a talk called “what the church means to people like me,” where he confesses he is more of a spirit of the law sort rather than letter. (edit — here’s a link to his original talk: http://sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issues/22/022-15-23.pdf )

Briefly, I agree that my statement above sounds like both (atheist) authors you mentioned. I think they make compelling arguments. I also agree that most religions don’t teach the “superior attitude.” But I feel many members live, and internally, actually believe it — despite the teachings. I believe the most accurate way to determine what a person’s convictions are is to look at the results in their lives, not what they say. I don’t believe most have the ability to “love the sinner, hate the sin.” I think the devastatingly high rate of suicides in the Utah LDS gay population demonstrates this.

Now, having said that, I DO believe it is possible to be religious AND moral. More later….

Thanks again for the response!

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

So, maybe, it’s not that religion causes immorality but the organizing (communalizing) of religion that causes immorality. I think this is why Thomas Jefferson once said that eventually all American men would be universal unitarians! 😆

Just a note here…for those that have attended UU before, it is a very different “feel” to a church service; I like it very much. It feels like it is much like what many of us would consider “self-help,” rather than churchy in a Mormon way. Even though there is music and talks, there is very little discussion of “what God says we should and should not do.” It is very much geared towards forgiveness and universal spirituality, unconditional community and self-love and service. They take pride in the fact that they have as “members” Christians, Pagans, Wiccans, Jewish, etc…all with the common goal of loving others. I might agree with that Jefferson dude….

Secondly, another thought about what we (LDS) and traditional OT followers might believe that could be considered immoral to many. Let’s take the example of Nephi’s slaying of Laban. Paraphrasing, the statement “it is better than one man perish than a nation dwindle in unbelief.” What is this teaching us? Is it “moral?” A few problems I have with it is that it opens the door for a few issues that can be catastrophic.

Like Islamic radicals, it gives permission for murder in the name of God…and who’s to say if one really hears the voice of God anyway? The right (or wrong) cocktail of herbs/food/dreams can set us up for some bizarre hallucinations that we may insist is God telling us something.

Next, how ’bout the near sacrifice of Abraham? (Btw, many scripture scholars I’ve read believe the story/myth of Abraham was borrowed from a previous Pagan story, fwiw). Like above, doesn’t it teach that murder of another is permitted if you have a conviction the commandment is from God? I wonder haw many lives have been taken because of this principle. A religious principle.

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

Now, having said that, I DO believe it is possible to be religious AND moral. More later….

Okay (can I quote myself? 😆 ), it’s “later.” I’d like to make the point that people, “religious” or not can be moral…and immoral. I’ve found that most folks I know have a “moral compass” based on their tradition (or mythology, in Campbell’s jargon). On another thread today, we have an LDS leader’s statement (BRM):

“”The law of sacrifice is that we are willing to sacrifice all that we have for the truth’s sake—our character and reputation; our honor and applause; our good name among men; our houses, lands, and families; all things, even our very lives if need be.” (credit to Justme)

In my 52 years, I think it’s safe to say that this line of thinking is believed by most LDSers, no? I’m quite sure that Elder McConkie was inferring that most of us would take his comments to heart as the way to live, active in our LDS callings and LDS lifestyle.

I can also see another meaning, using his exact words. How ’bout if our studies and prayers have led us out of the church…while the rest of our families are deeply steeped in the Mormon traditions? How much of a sacrifice it is for them (us) to lead their (our) “truth,” despite the lack of applause by their family members, and to the loss of “character and reputation,” in the eyes of the family…and even the other things mentioned. So is it “moral” to judge another’s path, and take hurtful action based on our own conviction of another path?

So the way I look at this, is that if we can truly look at, and respect another’s path as equal to ours, whether we are in or out of a religion, we can be moral. The lack of this is immoral, IMO.

Just some thoughts….

[Anonymous]

So, you’re saying Rix, that the immorality of religion is the conceit that it is the one way to God?

[Anonymous]

and I need to point out that what I consider to be pure Mormonism doesn’t include that conceit – or, at least, doesn’t JUST include that conceit.

Embedded in the paradox that includes “only true and living Church” and “Priesthood authority” is also the core concept that people can be exalted essentially by living faithfully whatever they believe / know (that their “mortal ignorance” is covered with the Atonement). That principle gets muddied sometimes in the here and now, but I really like the idea that there are two ideals standing almost in competition with each other – the need to preach and expound and exhort so that people strive to grow and improve in the here and now, coupled with the need to realize that there can be no condemnation of those who don’t accept the preaching, expounding and exhorting in that here and now. When we understand the inherent tension between what I see as those two bedrock NEEDS – that both MUST co-exist (one to push us toward an ideal and one to comfort us in our inability to achieve it – one to apply individually and one to apply communally – one to provide motivation and self-assurance and one to compel humility – etc.) – I think we can begin to see the outlines of peace and grace that can salve our struggles.

[Anonymous]

That’s great, Ray, thanks for sharing!

And, very practical, from both a humanistic standpoint and a spiritual one, imho.

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

So, you’re saying Rix, that the immorality of religion is the conceit that it is the one way to God?

Yes, as it is lived by most I have known, I think that is what I see. But as Ray says, in the traditional Christian paradigm of atonement and grace, as well as the strong charge to “judge not,” theoretically this should not be an attitude to have. But it seems that human nature leads many to self-validate by judging that another is not performing the way he/she should. This is the immorality I see.

The paradox Ray mentions is indeed a paradox…and I have to wonder if it is possible for most to reconcile it.

[Anonymous]

Maybe not naturally . . . 😆 😆 😆

[Author]

Posts