Moral development

[texan1]

If you believe that a society doesn't need religion to be a moral society, then you disagree with George Washington. He sent his troups to church.

Yes but George Washington also owned slaves, and as president obviously didn't see too much wrong with that. That doesn't seem very moral to me.

 

[texan1]

This is what I was trying to hint at earlier. Morality of our society has evolved quite a bit imo, and this is one example. Our founding fathers didn't seem to have a problem with the idea of capturing foreign people and shipping them over to our country as animals and then forcing them into slavery. This is an institution that lasted for generations. We have come along way from a moral standpoint. Yet the Bible hasn't changed. Christianity hasn't changed. Or maybe it has? When women finally achieved the right to vote, do you think that had anything to do with religion? Though religion can certainly influence people's beliefs, I think morality can and does exist separately from religion.

 

[Kungfuzed]

Personally, I can't figure out what's so danged difficult about the notion that morality has dual origins: evolution and divine influence. Morality without religion can only carry so far because at its roots are human fears and selfishness. It takes more than that to move us from "thou shalt not" to positive goodness without hope of reward or fear of punishment--which is at the heart of Christ's teaching notwithstanding popular misunderstandings. You say you are "looking for ways that religion contributes to moral development." I don't think so. If you're willing to read books like Breaking the Spell (which I have), you should be also willing to read books like Tippett's Speaking of Faith.

I actually haven't read either of those, but I'll look into it. You have a good point. Too often we think of morality as "thou shalt not" rather than "what good can I do today".

 

[Phasmid]

I think most people on this forum agree that morality is something that humans develop with or without religion. I'm looking for ways that religion contributes to moral development. I'm actually doing a paper on it for human development class and I'm looking for some inspiration. How has your religion infuenced your moral beliefs and actions?

Christianity influenced/still influences me a great deal. When I became a Christian (not a very good one) it made me think about every action, every word, every thought. It also made me realise just how bad a person I really am. I can see why people see it as being "born again". It's somewhat like having lived in complete darkness in a room full of mirrors, then someone turns on the lights and you see a pale, squinting creature in the reflection. After observing this creature, you realise it's you and you don't like what you see, you make an effort to smarten up.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, Christianity made me aware of my sinful nature and helped me to be aware that I have an animal part of me that runs counter to what a Christian should be and that I should try and over-come it with love. As a result my thoughts were geared towards acting in accordance with Jesus' teachings and basically trying not to fall back into old habbits.

Having left the faith I have to admit that my behaviour has got a bit worse... I was always failing as a Christian... but I drop so many F-Bombs at work it's shameful... but I have no incentive to change that... another positive aspect of Christianity - it gave me a purpose to be good.

I'd type more and I'd type it more coherently... but I'm very tired and have an early start tomorrow. Hope this helps at least a little.

 

[Kungfuzed]

Phasmid, I know what you mean. As a Christian, I always had the feeling I was being watched, by angels, or God, or Satan. I always had to act as though I were not alone, even when I was. I took it literally that God sees everything, every bird that falls, every drop of rain or blade of grass. I was convinced that angels walk among us and that we are constantly surrounded by devils trying to make us sin. I even found myself at times telling whoever might be in the bathroom with me to turn around while I do my business. Perhaps it's because I'm such a private person that made me dwell on it so much, countless multitudes of spirits all violating my privacy, watching my every move. How can everyone else cope with this so well? If they really believe it, if they take it all literally, how do they even function in everyday life? It's enough to make a person go insane, but I digress. You do always have to watch yourself as a Christian. You become judgemental of your every thought and deed. You become your own worst critic and live with a cloud of guilt hanging over you everywhere you go.

 

[Starfish]

Yes but George Washington also owned slaves, and as president obviously didn't see too much wrong with that. That doesn't seem very moral to me.

"Although George Washington was born into a world where slavery was accepted, his attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation.
As President, Washington did not lead a public fight against slavery, however, because he believed it would tear the new nation apart. Abolition had many opponents, especially in the South. Washington seems to have feared that if he took such a public stand, the southern states would withdraw from the Union (something they would do seventy years later, leading to the Civil War). He had worked too hard to build the country to risk tearing it apart.
Privately, however, Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly."

George Washington's Mount Vernon - George Washington and Slavery

 

[Sunstone]

George Washington: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."

" It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

John Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

They felt the need for religion to develop morality in the people.

If Adams was correct, how do you explain Norway?

 

[Sunstone]

If you believe that a society doesn't need religion to be a moral society, then you disagree with George Washington. He sent his troups to church.

Washington also believed in leeching. People weren't as well informed then as some people are now. If Washington was correct, how do you explain Norway?

 

[Starfish]

If Adams was correct, how do you explain Norway?

Norway?

 

[Sunstone]

Norway?

About 70% of Norwegians identify themselves atheists and yet the country has a significantly lower per capita crime rate than the United States where only about 3% of Americans identify themselves as atheists. How can it possibly be true that a society needs a belief in deity to be moral, if Norwegians are both significantly less likely to commit crimes and far more likely to be atheists than Americans?

 

[Starfish]

About 70% of Norwegians identify themselves atheists and yet the country has a significantly lower per capita crime rate than the United States where only about 3% of Americans identify themselves as atheists. How can it possibly be true that a society needs a belief in deity to be moral, if Norwegians are both significantly less likely to commit crimes and far more likely to be atheists than Americans?

Maybe they have an extraordinary policing system. There's far more to morality than obeying the law.

 

[Sunstone]

Maybe they have an extraordinary policing system. There's far more to morality than obeying the law.

I'm surprised you seem unaware the United States leads the entire world, including Norway, in incarcerations per capita.

 

[Starfish]

I'm surprised you seem unaware the United States leads the entire world, including Norway, in incarcerations per capita.

Morality goes far beyond avoiding incarceration. The U.S. has problems that many other countries don't have to deal with--like the overwhelming inflow of illegal aliens. The U.S. also leads the world in charitable donations and disaster aid. So we do have our scoundrels, yet we also have many of the most generous people.

 

[Sunstone]

Morality goes far beyond avoiding incarceration. The U.S. has problems that many other countries don't have to deal with--like the overwhelming inflow of illegal aliens. The U.S. also leads the world in charitable donations and disaster aid. So we do have our scoundrels, yet we also have many of the most generous people.

If widespread belief in a deity was necessary for a society to be moral, the reality of Norway could not exist. There would either be far fewer atheists in Norway or the crime rate would be far greater. That stands regardless of how many red herrings you throw out regarding charitable donations and the like.

 

[Starfish]

As I said, morality goes beyond obedience to law. It's defined in selfless behavior, honesty, ethics, sexual morals, integrity. It is living the Golden Rule, loving your neighbor, etc. All of these can be violated without breaking the law. So the crime rate is not a complete measuring tool for the level of morality in a society.

 

[Magic Man]

As I said, morality goes beyond obedience to law. It's defined in selfless behavior, honesty, ethics, sexual morals, integrity. It is living the Golden Rule, loving your neighbor, etc. All of these can be violated without breaking the law. So the crime rate is not a complete measuring tool for the level of morality in a society.

Wouldn't you say it starts with not breaking basic laws like "Don't kill" and "Don't Steal"? Is it better to have more people breaking these basic laws, but also helping other countries with their problems, or is it better to have people not breaking these laws, but also not helping other countries with their problems as much?

 

[Sunstone]

...the crime rate is not a complete measuring tool for the level of morality in a society.

True but irrelevant.

 

[yossarian22]

If you believe that a society doesn't need religion to be a moral society, then you disagree with George Washington. He sent his troups to church.

What was the point of this post?

 

[Sunstone]

I'm looking for ways that religion contributes to moral development.

There is increasing evidence from biology and other fields that humans are genetically coded for what might be called a "moral grammar". In other words, the basic structures of morality seem to inherent and universal. As such, religion has little or no influence on humanity's moral grammar. However, what it does seem to influence is the "moral language" based on that grammar.

For instance, according to one survey done by anthropologists, every culture surveyed seemed to agree with the basic principle that unprovoked murder was wrong. But the same cultures varied in which specific acts they considered to be unprovoked murder. In that example, you see the difference between the universal moral grammar (unprovoked murder is wrong) and the culture-specific moral language. Religions, then, can have an impact on the moral language of a culture or society but not on the moral grammar of a culture or society.

 

[Valjean]

Perhaps religious injunctions and values function as an important behavioral brake for that majority of people who do not develop an internalized morality.