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....
Monday, January 7, 2008
Revisiting Morality
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.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
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.
