Revisiting Morality

This is my second post on this topic

(http://mmebrady.blogspot.com/2007/12/on-law-religion-and-morality.html)

I was prompted to post again by a Time Magazine article I stumbled upon:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1685055_1685076_1686619,00.html

"Morality may be a hard concept to grasp, but we acquire it fast. A preschooler will learn that it's not all right to eat in the classroom, because the teacher says it's not. If the rule is lifted and eating is approved, the child will happily comply. But if the same teacher says it's also O.K. to push another student off a chair, the child hesitates. "He'll respond, 'No, the teacher shouldn't say that,'" says psychologist Michael Schulman, co-author of Bringing Up a Moral Child. In both cases, somebody taught the child a rule, but the rule against pushing has a stickiness about it, one that resists coming unstuck even if someone in authority countenances it. That's the difference between a matter of morality and one of mere social convention, and Schulman and others believe kids feel it innately."

So with the teacher making a rule staing it is OK to push another student off a chair we have an example of "law" in conflict with morality -- a situation in which the Bible would have us put the law of God before the "law" of man.

Then there is the issue of morality being an innate concept. In my previous post I asked "So from where else does one derive one's sense of right and wrong?" Psychologists interviewed for this article believe humans may have a moral code programmed from birth. I have long been interested in the nature v. nurture question, and find that idea fascinating -- not to mention the potential implications. If indeed there is a HUMAN moral code -- separate from religion, separate from law, separate from politics, what would this mean for issues like homosexuality? abortion?

Of course there is a distinction between this innate morality and behavior, or we would already live in a perfect world. Psychologist Marc Hauser discusses this in more detail:

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/52880

I will add this book to my reading list!

Back to the Time article: "But you don't need a state to create a moral code. The group does it too." -- I would argue that groups can collectively agree to abandon a prescribed moral code as well -- so-called "mob mentality" The example that comes to mind for me is a boating accident that happened locally, where someone was killed by a boater who was intoxicated, and in the fracas, the "group" decided to leave the scene of the accident. Here are the bare bones details:

http://www.9wsyr.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=44cf79e4-3494-4d1f-bc47-4cf5b81fc91d

Bottom line here, as Hauser puts forth, behavior will frequently exceed the boundaries of morality -- innate or otherwise.

Fascinating stuff...I welcome comments (as always, but particularly on this topic). I am sure this will not be my last posting on this topic....

Sphere: Related Content