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

Personal Safety in the Blogosphere

Well, I had originally planned to post on last night's debate on Fox, but after I watched the analysis and checked this morning's news, most people seem to think Romney came out ahead, and that just leaves me speechless. Then again, after his insistence that he NEVER called McCain's policy amnesty (plainly not true) Saturday night, and his bold-faced lie about having supported Bush tax cuts from the beginning (he said he wouldn't publicly endorse something he didn't support) I guess I sort of tuned him out in disgust.

So here's the deal -- I'm rather new to the blogosphere. Sure, I've read blogs for a long time, but not with any regularity, and not as a participant. Now that I've begun my own blog and made my rounds posting comments where comments seem necessary, I have discovered that certain sites are like great black holes of negativity -- Digg.com for example. Yes, I have it listed as a link here, and yes I continue to visit and participate daily in one thread or another, but mostly because it truly amuses me to be "Dugg down" by people not bold enough to comment with a difference of opinion, or to be attacked and called names by people who don't like what I have to say. Now, I am definitely opinionated, but I like to think that I am a reasonable and thoughtful person who leaves room in my view of the universe for differing opinions when they are presented rationally and based on fact. this site seems to be sorely lacking in both rationality and fact.

There are others like me -- even on Digg. The question I have is why attack? If you truly believe -- especially if you believe passionately -- in your opinion, why not argue it rationally? I have even been known to CHANGE my opinion in the face of rational argument and facts I perhaps had not known before. But being attacked or called names only makes me feel more right -- I think that's probably human nature.

And it makes me want to keep putting my opinions out there even more. So bring on the healthy debate, and those who choose to attack, you aren't accomplishing much, except to make yourselves look foolish.

Sphere: Related Content

Our Rights v. the Rights of our Children

A new law took effect in California yesterday, making it illegal to smoke tobacco in a car where a minor is present.

http://www.topix.com/us/2008/01/california-smoke-free-cars-with-minors-law-goes-into-effect#lastPost

Now as far as what goes on in California, my opinions are usually 100% contrary, but this is one of the few things that I support. Some will surely say (as I have read in comments on other blogs) that this law is "fascist" that the government is taking away "our rights", but what about the rights of our children? We have laws requiring us to educate our children. We have laws against abusing our children both emotionally and physically. How is it not abusive ot expose your child to secondhand smoke in an enclosed space? Study after study shows that secondhand smoke can have dire consequences for those who breathe it.

Check out this fact sheet from the American Lung Association:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39857

Is the right to subject our children to something clearly hazardous to their health a right worth fighting for? I think not.

There are those who will say that this law is merely another step on the way to outlawing tobacco outright. I don't think this law is about outlawing tobacco, but about protecting children. It is true that with this and other recent legislation it has become more and more difficult for a smoker to indulge at work or in public locations, but from my perspective this legislation is more about protecting the rights of nonsmokers than taking away smokers' rights.

It is true that I am not a smoker, which perhaps makes it difficult for a smoker to take my opinions seriously, but as a nonsmoker I have the right to breathe clean air just as much as a smoker has the right to pollute his or her lungs. Should there be certain public places where smokers can smoke and nonsmokers can choose to avoid? Absolutely. But children don't have the choice to get out of a car where someone is smoking. Children are at the mercy of the adults responsible for them at any given time. So their rights need to be protected, and when adults lack the common sense to keep their children safe, sometimes legislation is necessary.

Sphere: Related Content

New Year's Resolutions

I think most of us at least think about making resolutions at this time each year. Some follow through and make resolutions. Some even keep their resolutions. Me, I get to the making resolutions part, but 12 months is a really long time! This year, however I'm determined. I have two:

1. eat healthier (again) Hopefully I have more luck at it this time around.

2. Keep up with this blog. So far so good. I still keep hoping for more readers, but I haven't gotten discouraged yet. Patience....

I came across this posting which has some tips on being more successful in keeping your resolutions:

http://lifelessonsmilitarywife.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-years-resolutions-in-reality.html

What I have found in my own life, is that I have made a crucial change over the past couple of years. It was not related to a resolution, per se, but it has been a very important and positive change. I slowly pulled my head out of the sand and began paying a lot more attention to what is going on in the world. I guess this blog is the next logical step.

So I chose this topic for this post to ask all who read it to consider resolving a few things in this important election year.

1. Keep watching, listening to, and reading the news. Pay attention to what the candidates are saying, and pay attention to what media outlets are saying about the candidates. Be informed!

2. Keep in mind that media is NOT objective. Take everything with a grain of salt. Follow media on BOTH sides of the political playing field, and form your own opinions. Be an independent and critical thinker!

3. Make an active decision what issues are most important to YOU in this election -- give it some thought, and make sure you know the positions of the candidates.

4. VOTE! But cast an informed vote. Whatever your political leanings, the only "wasted" vote is one that has been cast thoughtlessly.

Our nation is at a critical point. The world is in great turmoil. I am not advocating any one candidate or party. I am urging you to sort through the oft-biased sound bytes and campaign ad propaganda to find out what the candidates are really about, what is important to you, and do your duty as an American citizen.

Sphere: Related Content

On Law, Religion, and Morality

I found this quote at

http://www.thomaspaineblog.org

“There are many things which in themselves are neither morally good nor bad, but they are productive of consequences, which are strongly marked with one or other of these characters.”
-Thomas Paine

I thought it very clearly stated something I've been grappling with but haven't quite been able to put my finger on -- a concept that has been a theme in some of my posts. Those of us who believe in some form of organized religion have a code of morality laid out for us. Religion and morality are inextricably intertwined. But how about those who are atheist or agnostic? Surely these people are not amoral. So morality is not the sole territory of religion.

So from where else does one derive one's sense of right and wrong? The laws of the land provide us with clear guidelines about what is and is not legal...what behaviors will and won't be punished. There is clearly some overlap between law and morality, but unlike with religion, issues of law are not always issues of morality. For example, if I exceed the speed limit in my car, I do not feel the need to repent. However, sooner or later it is likely that some kind police officer will point out the error of my ways, and impose a consequence.

Further, for those of us who are Christian, our religion dictates that we follow the laws of the land, insofar as they are compatible with the laws of God. But we must put the law of God before the law of man -- creating quite the dilemma in circumstances where the laws of God and man are in conflict.

hmmm........

So let's apply this to an issue I have put forth:

Drugs -- illegal, (although medical uses of marijuana remain in a grey area); to my knowledge, religion does not speak directly to the issue of drug use; moral or immoral? the demonization of drug use that I have spoken of leaves one with the impression that there is a question of morality here, but I think Mr. Paine's words are appropriate -- drug use in and of itself is neither morally good nor bad, but use outside a doctor's care is a violation of law, and therein lies the moral issue. Given that, I reiterate my position that medical use of marijuana SHOULD be a legal option, provided continued study supports its benefits, and government sponsored needle exchange programs are also within the boundaries of morality.

Sphere: Related Content

Marijuana -- Time to Admit It's not All Bad

Ok, so here's the headline:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318526,00.html

Let me start by saying that I'm speaking as someone who has never taken an illegal drug. Never, not once, not only did I not inhale, but I've never even had the stuff near me.

I do not understand the resistance to the concept of Medical Marijuana. Street drugs -- bad. Illegal drugs -- bad. Abuse/misuse of prescription pharmaceuticals -- bad. But prescription of a chemical substance that can relieve some of the side effects of chemotherapy, or even inhibit the growth of some tumors -- NOT BAD.

I wrote in a previous post about the "demonization" of illegal drugs as it relates to Needle Exchange programs. With that issue, I can at least see the point of the other side. There is the potential downside of enabling drug addicts -- although I still believe the benefits outweigh the negatives. This manifestation of the demonization of illegal drugs, however, mystifies me. We are talking about, people coping with a potentally fatal disease finding some relief from their pain, and perhaps some hope for longer term survival. How is this a bad thing? Morphine, commonly given in hospitals for pain management, is highly addictive. Who is speaking out against morphine? Oxycodone abuse has become an issue in recent years, but it is still prescribed regularly. How about human growth hormone? Major League Baseball will never be the same again. But it is legal to be prescribed in specific situations. So why not marijuana?

It seems to be another example of misguided morality imposing itself where it does not belong. If it can help people, then USE IT. By all means regulate it, but USE IT.

Still not convinced? Check out what the AMA has to say:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13625.html

Sphere: Related Content

Needle Exchange: Good or Evil?

Drug addicts in Washington DC will be allowed to exchange dirty needles for clean ones after a 9 year ban has been lifted. DC has the highest rate of AIDS of any major city in the nation -- significantly higher than the national average. So will needle exchange solve this problem? Statistics show that needle exchanges do have a positive impact in reducing the rate of AIDS in hypodermic drug users. But the question becomes, does that positive impact outweigh the possibility that these programs send the message that drug use is OK. Once again, a practical issue becomes mired in morality. Don't get me wrong -- I believe strongly that morality has its place, and that government does indeed bear some responsibility in this area. But "The War on Drugs" has demonized drug use to the point where practical solutions -- again looking at the greater good -- are criticized based on an overinflated sense of morality imposed on a legal/medical issue. Yes, drug use is illegal, and breaking the law is morally wrong, I get it. But drug addiction is a disease, and this too must be considered. Obviously the ideal would be to eliminate drugs, take away the addiction, and clean things up that way. But the war on drugs isn't going all that well -- DC being a perfect example of our country's failure in this area. Practically speaking, I believe that needle exchange programs serve the greater good. Further, I do not believe that the promise of free, clean needles will lure unsuspecting children into first time drug use. It is a less than perfect solution, but it is a step toward a solution nonetheless. Perhaps we can be more successful in the war on AIDS than we have been in the war on drugs.

Sphere: Related Content