You say: “We have been out of the Sun, shaded under the auspices of religion for so long, that we now think spirituality ( i define that here as the notion that all men are brothers, that i am one with the universe, in the words of Krishnamurti, “I am the World, the World is me”) will cease to be once we have left the cool alcove of religion to gambol out in the hot sun. My friends, that is precisely where one needs one’s spirituality most!”
You suggest that religion is the reason we think the way we do, and that religion is the sourse of altruism. Yet you also said that animals exhibit altruistic behavior on occasion. Also, mothers teach young children to respect others and their property. They also teach empathy with “poor kitty” and the necessity for helpfullness. I’m not sure the religious umbrella provides as much shade as you think it does.
Well there are points to religion which were good for humanity: namely, it gave us a believe in the immortal and not a sense of meaninglessness, we also held to a grand truth that we were hear for something (it was also though used as a weapon for wealth by those who stud at its heights such as most forms of power today). Past times the soul was seen as a infallible substance until the ninteenth century were a development of the “mind without soul” driven by science. But i still believe spirituality cant be depleted by the empirical phychic of today, many heightened enlightments can still be gotten such as Buddist dream interpretation and particular yoga varients or feelings of karma. I think spirtuality still has a place in the search for truth and the running of the machine which we are apart of; the machine that never reachs any goal or finds any aim.
Whether religion is a good thing or a bad thing is not relevant to the point I way trying to make about altruism. As far as altruism is concerned I’m not sure that religion is or was the dominant source. Since altruism is easily mistaken for stupidity, it is a tricky thing to advocate. As you point out, animals on occasion display altruistic behavior so altruism may be innate to the human species. If that is the case it may be as important to avoid suppressing altruistic urges as it is to advocate them.
With regard to western religion, its effect on altruism is not at all clear since factional rivalry between religious sects does not encourage altruism. You mentioned spirituality, but I’m not sure why since I see no direct connection with altruism.
— Thanks f7u2p for that invigorating post. I tentatively agree with you. I think it important, however, not to confuse spirituality with altruism. I seem to have conflated the two in my post, i’m sorry for that. To my mind (and i’m open to suggestions here) altruism is only one aspect of spirituality. Perhaps, as Kesh suggests, they have no correlation at all. Sometimes i help someone simply because i see him/her as the other “me”, somewhat like Buddhism, this may be the closest the two come together in my personal life.
— Of course altruism does not require religion, but a vast majority of the Earth’s people are advocates of some religion and i would say that most of that group think differently. Change is inexorable, but slow. Though the majority of men still stand under the umbrella of religion, a few brave the elements of their own existence. To answer your post, f7u2p, the umbrella (or parasol) of religion only provides security to those who seek it. (perhaps i should use the third person less often). Even though Religion is not as specific to our education and culture as it once was most of the parents i know, though not religious in a strict sense, do not hesitate to let their kids learn morals from the church. To my mind, they default on one of the biggest responsibilities of raising children. Children have to unlearn through years, what could have been taught correctly the first time. How many children are simply given “hand-me-down” morals?How many children are brought up in more than one major religion? How many children are simply taught the “Golden Rule” outside of any moral construct?
— Thank you for that post Kesh. I would not want a life outside of spirituality. I’ve often been accused of being “metaphysical” on that account and have had William James recommended to me numerous times beyond recall. I used to think religion relatively benign, but i look around the World and most of the conflicts are being fought along religious lines, perhaps it’s not the fault of religion, but the people who adopt those views. Perhaps religion is the last excuse of the eternally violent(E.G. Witness GWB’s recent attack on Babylon!). I still enjoy sunsets, dogs peering out of car windows, laughing children, attractive members of the opposite sex and all of the little beautiful things that go to make up an insignificant life spent in grateful awe at the large indifferent universe.
It’s nice to get a polite response. Too many contain impertinent accusations.
It is difficult for me to take a position on altruism. I subscribe to the golden rule, but that applies to situations involving something more like a quid pro quo exchange. The trouble with altruism is that it is up to the donor to figure out what is best for the recipient. We live in a commercial society that more or less balances needs with resources. Altruism in the form of philanthropy risks upsetting the balance, such as it is, and the donor may need to remain involved for some period of time to ensure a happy outcome. We can disperse money but not happiness. The two are not the same.
Your experience with religion was undoubtedly quite different than mine. In Sunday school the teacher was usually embattled trying to persuade the class that there was a god even though we couldn’t see god. It was the same with the efficacy of prayer. If morals were mentioned I must have been absent. As a young man I read the King James version of the Bible to find out what it was all about. It was interesting, but not very helpful as a moral guide. However, the Elizabethan prose was inspiring, and now I’m turned off my the modern English translations. They don’t sound like the word of god to my ear.
I agree whole heartedly that morals need to be taught in childhood. The instruction should be keyed to the age of the child starting at about two. In my opinion morals for better or worse are learned in childhood. Expecting a shift in an adult’s morals is, in most cases, wishful thinking – despite religion, and despite what they might say.
— Fascinating point about the donor having to figure out what is best for the recipient! In some cases, like World hunger, it’s pretty easy, but in others it may not be so cut and dried. Sometimes need doesn’t scream out so loud. Sometimes philanthropists just bungle things up.
—When i give i don’t really expect anything in return, it is usually because i consider myself rich in whatever it is that i give to my beneficiary. I’ve always thought that giving should be like this, somewhat like Aristotle’s magnanimous man, a soul so overflowing that it must give. Anything else seems to taint the offering.
— Here in the bible belt the religious experience is different. Is it really that much different in California? I agree with you about the new translations of the Bible, some even go so far as to say “Thou shalt not murder” instead of “Thou shalt not kill”, the difference doesn’t even need explaining, it means that Jesus advocates the genocide of any nation or race of people as long as it has Godvernment’s sanction.
— Quid pro quo and reciprocity is more of an idea in Chinese philosophy, it seems to have disappeared in the dog eat dog World of capitalism where everybody is out for what they can get.
You say: “In some cases, like World hunger, it’s pretty easy” … “to figure out what is best for the recipient!”. World hunger may be a case in point of why it is not as easy as it seems. Even hungry places have a local economy such as it is, and free food is a disruption unless the free food will be provided for ever. Local circumstances need careful consideration to figure out how to provide help without disruption. A thoughtful solution may take a long time to execute.
Did you just invent a new word: “Godvernment”? Is it meant as a label for the Bush administration? To me the difference between murder and kill is that murder applies to killing people, while kill is more general though ambiguous. I’m not sure I got your point about genocide and Jesus.
You say: “Quid pro quo and reciprocity is more of an idea in Chinese philosophy, it seems to have disappeared in the dog eat dog World of capitalism where everybody is out for what they can get.” I always thought of capitalism as a quid pro quo system. My latest impression of Chinese philosophy came from the small delightful book: “Confusious Lives Next Door”. From the book’s description of its application in the far east I thought it a softer approach than the rather vindictive Christian attitude toward sin.
— Yes, the need for food is easy to figure out, but the solution (which would involve the concerted involvement of myriad persons) is far from easy. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
— My greatest wish is to have invented that word, but alas, another illustrious poster here is the one to whom i owe the credit. Murder is defined as unlawful killing (a civilian crime dictionary.com even says unlawful in the definition) killing is what one would do in a state of war for one’s Godvernment. One would do well to recall Orwell’s warnings about language. In other words it’s okay if 260,000,000 people want to murder but not one.
— I’m not sure there are any Quid Pro Quo systems. But at least capitalism’s stated purpose is not that explicitly, whereas in other politico/economic ideologies the common ownership of the means of production is.
Getting back to the thread subject: “Are we living now in a Post-Moral age?”, I have some remarks.
It seems to me that everyone acquires a set of morals for better or for worse. Everyone uses a set of moral rules to to streamline decision making. These rules evolve and are acquired during childhood and stay with us for life. The nature of morals is in the form of an emotional bias that is difficult or impossible for adults to change. To me every society is a moral society, although we may wish that some of its morals were different.
We can detect a tendency toward the evolution of “one world” society, but we are not there yet. As it slowly evolves it is not clear what its moral characteristics might become.
I am concerned about the detrimental effects that a world population explosion, poverty, and global warming may impose on the formation of a one world society’s morals. They may even prevent its formation.
—Yes, we all have values, social mores, principles, although i’m not so sure that they don’t undergo some change in a few of us, otherwise how will we evolve towards a “one World” society. Society, after all, is comprised of individuals. Hopefully any “emotional bias” will be balanced with understanding.
— Every changing society will engender outcomes which will be unpredictable from the original configuration. Even successful attempts at one problem will leave a future generation with originally unforeseen problems (witness pollution, for example, spawned by the industrial age’s “answers”), all we can do is try to fix the worst problems in a manner that we believe will bring about the most favourable outcome. As far as the problems of the current generation preventing the formation of future caring people, i doubt it, our problems are not insurmountable, just difficult.
You mentioned: “… we all have values, social mores, principles, although i’m not so sure that they don’t undergo some change in a few of us …” Yes, we all can learn to adapt to environments different that those in which we were raised. My theory is that the process of learning to adapt as an adult is different than adapting as children. The difference is that adapting as adults is more rational without inducing the emotional component experienced by children as they adapt.
The effect of environmental adaptation as children underlies moral character. As adults we may learn more socially acceptable behaviors, but the stress of circumstances may induce an emotional reaction layed down in childhood that interupts rational thought and overides socially acceptable behaviors learned as adults. As a result we may be appalled at what we have done, said, or thought because it was not what we rationally intended. People living in circumstances akin to their adult environments may not experience such conflicts. When environments differ radically adults may have to pay close attention to circumstances and avoid those in which they have difficulty remaining socially acceptable.
What you are describing seems very close to maturity. Even though we have the capacity to change we still retain a lot from childhood, our brain has been formed, and as humans we are taught a great deal, rather than given instinct; it shapes us emotionally, mentally, socially, but rarely is it inescapable, man is the creature that must form himself, “pull himself up from his own bootstraps” as Ortega Gasset and other existentialists have noted, but alas, some people never question their roots…
Yes, what I’m describing is maturity, but with a new twist that in my mind explains things often observed in moral behavior. Why under stress (temptation) some take the money and run while others merely suggest that money be put away. The new twist emphasizes the emotional quality of morals, and recognizes that emotional responses evolve during childhood and don’t change much thereafter. This explains why some otherwise nice people cannot be trusted to handle money, and why lecturing them or punishing them will not correct the situation. Such people must not be allowed to handle money – ever.
— I think the emotional element is frequently rejected in a lot of ethical theories. The dying religions have left their legacy of love, reverance, gratefulness, etc.; emotions which will need a new vehicle. so many observances, ceremonies, and rights of passage have been tossed aside in our civilizations older, more cerebral age. Consequently, individuals have a hard time relating to the group, the universe, and most importantly, to themselves.
— I think emotions can change. but perhaps we need to change our thoughts and experiences first, What do you think?
You say and ask: “I think emotions can change. but perhaps we need to change our thoughts and experiences first, What do you think?”
I’m not so sure that our initial emotional reactions to environmental circumstances change after childhood – at least they don’t change all that much. What I mean by “motional reaction” is usually a short duration response that interrupts rational thought and places us in a heightened alert mode. When rational thought resumes we then decide to either run, fight, or answer politely. Usually what we do is a learned response because we have been in circumstances like that before – in childhood we hope. What we do depends both upon the nature of the environmental circumstances, and our learned (rational) responses to those circumstances. When encountering a set of circumstances for the first time we may sit frozen in indecision while the rest of the congregation merely picks up a hymnal, stands and opens it to the proper page. Kleptomaniacs have learned that when they see an attractive item they should furtively grab it. When that behavior was learned in childhood it is hard to change. Behavior modification may enable them to learn a new behavior, but in my opinion the sighting of an attractive item will continue to illicit in them an emotional attraction for the rest of their lives. They have merely learned to look away, not grab it and go somewhere else. Such learned socially acceptable behaviors are subject to remission depending on circumstances. Most of us learned something quite different in childhood and will never have a problem shopping for jewelry and trinkets.
— You speak as if emotions could not work in consort with, or could override, intelligence. In a lot of people i’m sure that this is exactly what happens, but not in all at all times. We learn a lot in childhood, our brain later becomes more fixed, more hardwired, but i consider all of this little evidence for a deterministic universe. If Wo/men are incapable of change, then all morality, psychology, ethics, politics, and religion have all been to no avail, but perhaps i have misunderstood your thesis.
You responded: “You speak as if emotions could not work in consort with, or could override, intelligence.” I wonder what I said that gave you that impression.
You say: “We learn a lot in childhood, our brain later becomes more fixed, more hardwired, but i consider all of this little evidence for a deterministic universe.” What does a deterministic universe have to do with a discussion on morals?
You say: “If Wo/men are incapable of change, then all morality, psychology, ethics, politics, and religion have all been to no avail, but perhaps i have misunderstood your thesis.” That’s correct. Morality, psychology, ethics, politics, and religion have had little influence on what people do when no one is watching – sometimes even when they are.
Yes, that’s right. An “emotional reaction” is usually a short duration response that interrupts rational thought and places us in a heightened alert mode. When rational thought resumes we then decide to either run, fight, or answer politely. As you say, it can override rational thought that you call “intelligence”. I would say it works in concert with rational thought (your “intelligence”) by interupting momemtarily to force consideration of the environmental circumstances that triggered the emotion.
I still don’t see what a deterministic universe have to do with a discussion on morals.
I too think emotions should work in concert with thought, that is why i particularly like the word “understanding” for it’s empathy and thought. If our emotions don’t change much after we get older, that is a bit deterministic isn’t it? I’m merely trying to understand your ideas, you’ve had some good ones and i’m trying to draw conclusions based on them. When i introspect i can see that your idea of emotional reaction hits very close to the mark, i didn’t see that before.