Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Defining morals and morality

From the book "The Final Superstition" - by Joseph L. Daleiden

To define a principle as a “God given right” is an attempt to universalize the principle to be applicable to all times and circumstances. It also, in effect, removes the principle from examination and validation in terms of its impact on human welfare. The danger here is that when an authoritative religion is vested with the infallible authority to determine what constitutes a moral right or moral obligation, it will structure the rules of morality to serve the interests of the religious institution itself before the interests of humankind. When morality becomes controlled and defined by an elite, whether an authoritarian state or religion, it is structured primarily to serve those in power.

Humankind probably devised some rudimentary moral laws long before it created organized religions. William James recognized that moral behavior could be explained by purely natural means: “instinct and utility between them can safely be trusted to carry on the social business of punishment and praise.” James may have been overly simplistic and optimistic in this view, but he was on the right track.\

According to Paul Beattie, the origins of morality can be traced primarily to the role model of the family. Parenthood, which originally was largely instinctive, by virtue of the nurturing of infants and care of young children, provided a role model, not in terms of what was taught, but in the relationships involved. Seeing the benefits of mutual dependence and harmony existing in successful families generated the idea that society could benefit if this selfless relationship could be extended to the “family of man.”

Social custom was the device used to transmit moral codes which stood the test of time. Customs prevent each individual from acting in a socially destructive way and facilitate the transmission of values from one generation to the next. While customs are not fluid, they are sufficiently plastic to permit remolding if the needs of the day demand it. Religion, on the other hand, rigidly formalizes moral structures, thus inhibiting further evolution.

Nevertheless, sociobiologists such as E. O. Wilson caution that it would be wrong to reject all moral values and rules of religion out of hand, since the real origin of those values is not a mystical God or religious institution per se, but rather the genetically transmitted disposition to altruism (or at least reciprocity). Therefore religions can be of some benefit if they effectively reinforce certain moral values even if the theological basis for accepting those values is erroneous. Still, each moral value and rule must be periodically reviewed for appropriateness and relevance, and this is where religions usually fail.

No comments: