![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jedusorLately, I've been thinking about the concepts of right and wrong. If you live by the rules of an organized religion, then the scriptures or holy people of that religion tell you what you should and shouldn't do. Interpreting those rules can be complicated, especially when you're dealing with ancient texts and flubbed translations, but the foundations are there.
I do not identify with any specific religion. I'm not sure yet what I am; I was an agnostic, but a metaphor offered by Chainsaw's wife, Infinity, made me seriously think about that, and I may be an atheist. However, I don't need a spiritual label to know that I'm not about to do or not do something simply because I'm told (by a book or a person) whether or not it's acceptable.
But I do have morals, and that's what I've been thinking about. I know that I believe rape is wrong. I know that I believe senseless murder is wrong. I know that I believe that baseless discrimination is wrong. Where do these ideas come from?
One system I've been considering is relativity. Some things that would be unacceptable in one context are acceptable in another. There is certainly a good deal of truth to this, but it can't be all there is to morality. There are still fundamental "good" and "bad" actions, even if the level of goodness or badness can be altered situationally.
Another concept is that morality is a social agreement between people, constructed for mutual benefit. Again, there is some truth in the idea, but again, it doesn't explain everything. I have no desire to kill, for example, and even in a situation in which it might benefit me to do so (if I were on a desert island, perhaps, faced with the choice between murder and starvation) I would balk at such a deed. And I don't think that reluctance is based solely on my upbringing and social education. There's more to it than that.
Then, at church yesterday, it hit me. Rewards and consequences are a large part of morality, but tempering that is the idea of empathy. I would avoid killing to survive not because of any abstract "killing is wrong" concept, but because if the situation were reversed, I would not want someone else to choose to murder me. It's that simple.
If you think about it, religious morals are based on consequences and empathy, too. Some version of the Golden Rule is included in most belief structures, and the promise of heaven (or eternal life, self-actualization, etc.) is a pretty strong motivator for people to follow the rules.
This, by the way, is why I love my UU church: we can talk about things like this, and hear other people's thoughts and opinions, and no one has to be afraid to express themselves because of the way they're supposed to think.
I do not identify with any specific religion. I'm not sure yet what I am; I was an agnostic, but a metaphor offered by Chainsaw's wife, Infinity, made me seriously think about that, and I may be an atheist. However, I don't need a spiritual label to know that I'm not about to do or not do something simply because I'm told (by a book or a person) whether or not it's acceptable.
But I do have morals, and that's what I've been thinking about. I know that I believe rape is wrong. I know that I believe senseless murder is wrong. I know that I believe that baseless discrimination is wrong. Where do these ideas come from?
One system I've been considering is relativity. Some things that would be unacceptable in one context are acceptable in another. There is certainly a good deal of truth to this, but it can't be all there is to morality. There are still fundamental "good" and "bad" actions, even if the level of goodness or badness can be altered situationally.
Another concept is that morality is a social agreement between people, constructed for mutual benefit. Again, there is some truth in the idea, but again, it doesn't explain everything. I have no desire to kill, for example, and even in a situation in which it might benefit me to do so (if I were on a desert island, perhaps, faced with the choice between murder and starvation) I would balk at such a deed. And I don't think that reluctance is based solely on my upbringing and social education. There's more to it than that.
Then, at church yesterday, it hit me. Rewards and consequences are a large part of morality, but tempering that is the idea of empathy. I would avoid killing to survive not because of any abstract "killing is wrong" concept, but because if the situation were reversed, I would not want someone else to choose to murder me. It's that simple.
If you think about it, religious morals are based on consequences and empathy, too. Some version of the Golden Rule is included in most belief structures, and the promise of heaven (or eternal life, self-actualization, etc.) is a pretty strong motivator for people to follow the rules.
This, by the way, is why I love my UU church: we can talk about things like this, and hear other people's thoughts and opinions, and no one has to be afraid to express themselves because of the way they're supposed to think.
