Sathfilms

maxxworld » Blog Archive » moral philosophy

Interesting blog post referring to the Virginia Tech Massacre. It covers topics such as morality and religion and it criticises ideas about an absolute system of morality, and the validity of religion therein, referring to biblical morality as “superfluous.” It’s hard to tell if the author believes in God or not, but that isn’t important.

I just find it hard to believe that we, humans, are it – the ultimate beings. Morality must relate to some sort of idea of truth. I’d like to believe in a spherical kind of truth which is represented by the many religions and also by their scriptures. By this, I mean a “truth” that has many sides and many faces that allow us to focus in our lives and live with good intentions; and in the end, have decent values. One massive problem is that all these terms – values, good intentions, good, bad, etc – become very ambiguous. What are good values? How does one judge good intentions anyway? What are good and bad? Everyone has their own ideas on such things – they are conditioned differently, their lives are different, their religions, their attitudes and so on. I guess, that’s why things like the bible exist, and why they are accepted by so many – because many, need to be told what these ambiguous values and terms “really” mean. So then, we have a struggle between religions and views, which then spread into every crevice of society.

If it was possible – which it isn’t – an “absolute system of morality” would solve all assuming that these morals are ingrained in the values of the people. However, I think the first thing that should be said is that it’s ridiculous to suggest some sort of standardization of values at all – given that there are so many views in existence, its plainly impossible – even within Christianity there are many interpretations of the same thing, and there are many ways to subsequently approach those interpretations – Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox churches and so on. Similarly, but another point: it is unfair to label the many issues caused by interpretations of scripture – and unreasonable applications of such reasoning – onto all forms of Christianity and Christians as a whole (e.g. like blaming Christian thought as a whole for the spread of disease in Africa). I’ll come back to this in another post with another example.

Call me prejudiced, but the second thing I’d like to mention is with regards to the context of the argument. Nathaniel Peters’ view (mentioned in the the linked blog) that such a massacre cannot be looked at as “right or wrong” because we lack an absolute system of morality is almost an insult to the deceased and their families. Perhaps one can analyse and debate over the psychological state of Seung-Hui Cho during the massacre, but how can one even begin to question the morality of the result: 32 innocents, dead.

It’s right to say that one doesn’t need the bible to know that something like this is wrong, but at the same time the saying that the bible is superfluous is a bit rough; perhaps these sort of texts are a good starting point for the formation of values and morality. They are in the end accepted by many, and although they can be interpreted in ways which can be considered bad, many good things arise from the bible and other such scriptures. I’d like to hear from people who believe that morality can’t exist without religion.

I think the problem here is more to do with an unhealthy upbringing where questioning isn’t taught, or worse – it isn’t encouraged. Forget religion, and forget any sort of taught value system – the one characteristic that all humans with a healthy mind share, is that of reasoning. We can analyse, we can think, we can question. The “cultural morality” mentioned in the linked blog is not enough either, unless we are questioning everything that eventually forms our value system and our ideas with regards to “morality.”

I don’t think religion (whatever I’m familiar with anyway) is bad unless it is taken out of context or put into the wrong context, or if it is blindly followed. I’d like to think of religion as a guide on how to live our lives, but that we have to decide how we apply it, and that we have to use our given abilities to work out what to do and what is right. I can’t believe there is one single path to follow, or one absolute system of morality which is derived from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and so on, because if I were God, and that was what I intended, I’d have been clearer. I don’t want to start talking about the accuracy of sacred texts (but that is an important thing to question), but if something like an “absolute system” can exist, it will be derived from the usage of our abilities – our reasoning – to question whatever exists in the world around us.

I find the stance that “religion not only advocates false-hope and irrationality, but also legitimizes immoral acts in the name of God,” quite extreme. This can definitely be the case, and there are numerous examples of this in history, but alongside religion, other factors such as brainwashing (to use a loaded term) twist religion and scripture into venomous things that then advocate this “false-hope and irrationality” and the possibility of subsequent “immoral acts.”

I find it silly, assuming God didn’t literally come down and tell them “DO THIS…” to do something in one way only (including religion) and then believe that it is the only way to do something, when no other method has even been attempted. I guess, that’s what people call “faith” but I think it’s unhealthy when coupled with a nature that doesn’t question (because of upbringing etc). This is what gives rise to statements about “absolute morality,” which in turn lead to such questions about the morality of “murder,” which then leads to disapproving attitudes towards religion.

Maybe it causes unhappiness, but we can reason and question, and we should!