(no subject)

[velvetpage]

This comes from a discussion that started in normanrafferty's journal and then continued in mike_fang's journal. Piet conducted most of it, but I was still thinking about it. I've posted about morality and motivation before - somewhere back in my list of PoAC's. This one is a response specifically to the idea that all morality has to come from God to be truly moral, primarily because morality from God gives us a reason to either hope for or fear the afterlife.



I am a Christian. The reason I've heard all this before is that I grew up in the Church. My daughter watches Veggietales because I like the teachings of it (most of the time.) But I still disagree. Why?

Putting aside the logical arguments, I look at my own life and try to figure out why I behave in a moral fashion. Here's what I discover when I do that:

1) Most of my actions are based on habit. I thank store clerks as a matter of course. I recycle. I wait in line. I argue in ways that respect the other person, while seeking to get to the root of the matter. These are all habits of being I've developed, and while I can (and occasionally do) choose to forego them in a given situation, most of the time I don't. There's no motivation there - no fear of Hell nor hope of Heaven. It's just the way I live.

2) I have a set of deeply-held beliefs. Some of them are Christian; some of them are a subset of Christian ones, and these mostly give rise to my political affiliation with socialism as a basis for a just and good society. Some of them belong to neither category, and are just part of the philosophical framework of my life. These beliefs form the basis of my morality in those times when I actually have to make a decision about how to act - a decision that is not habitual. An example: when I bring marking home on the weekend, I'd consider myself to have fallen down on my work ethic if I didn't do it, because that's my job. Now, I occasionally don't do it even so. But it's against my morals not to, and I feel guilty about it because I don't measure up to my own standards when I don't do my marking. This work ethic is part habit, part Christian belief that God expects hard work of His people, part a sense of responsibility to my students and their parents. Again, though, fear of hell or hope of heaven don't really enter into that.

3) A huge number of my decisions, both big and small, come from desiring what is best for my family and friends - especially my children and my husband. This category is often extended into what is best for my community, because most of the time, that which is best for my family will also be beneficial, if only in a tiny way, to the people I share a city and a country and a world with. Examples of decisions in this area: how I invest my money; my preference for buying locally-grown food; making myself take my daughter to the park even when i don't feel like going. There would be nothing immoral about not doing any of these things. Strawberries from California are just as good as strawberries from Ontario, except for two weeks in June, and people in California need to keep their farms operating, too. But my decisions start with making life better for the people in my immediate vicinity, and spread out from there. That's partly to maximize the chances of continuing the gene pools closest to me - my children, my family, etc, etc. That's the humanist reason. But there's also the simple matter that I care what happens to these people. Even if they will someday be dust again, even if there were no heaven or hell, I would still do these things because I care about these people and this community.

What I'm trying to point out is that morality doesn't have to be based in fear. Morality is very tightly tied up with motivation, and most people have complex motivations for doing most things. Some of those motivations will be extrinsic - that is, motivated by things outside of themselves, like a fear of punishment or hope for reward. A truly moral person, however, will be operating primarily on intrinsic motivations - doing things because they are the right thing to do, help the people they care about, help the society they care about - without any reference to punishment or reward. I believe that this is the kind of motivation that God wants us to have, because it is less selfish. At its best, it is even altruistic. A morality based on reward and punishment is inherently selfish, and that's not how I want to be.

Comments

[redeem147.livejournal.com]

Was it CS Lewis who wrote Right and Wrong as a clue to the Origin of the Universe (or a title something like that). His postulation was that since there is no real incentive to choose right over wrong unless it was imbedded in us, that it implies a creator.

But the idea that morality is based on fear? What about God's love? And loving God?

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

It was CS Lewis, and that theory would have been a much better argument to make.

Christian morality is based in three ideas: love for God and by extension for his creation, anticipation of heaven as a reward for a just life, and conversely, fear of hell for those who do not love God. One could add a fourth, too: adherence to Biblical teachings as a way to understand how to love God's creation. The first is intrinsic, the others are extrinsic. Prioritizing the second and third in arguments denotes a rather immature faith, IMO. One of the things I look for when investigating churches is the order in which these moral principles are listed. If adherence to the Bible and fear of Hell/promise of Heaven are more important to a church than loving God and loving his creation, then they have their priorities messed up and I don't want any part of them.

[thebitterguy]

That Fang guy, he's a bit of a douche, idn't he?

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Is this a good time to point out that this post is public? Because of that, it would be rude to a potential reader to answer you. :)

[thebitterguy]

It was more a rhetorical question than anything else.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Let's ask Mr. Gradgrind!

[paka.livejournal.com]

There's this parable about a rabbi who does something so terrible - we're not told what - that an angel shows up and informs him that he shall never have enterance to heaven. Immediately he starts dancing. So his students ask him what's got him so happy, and his response was that previously, he'd done correct actions in hope of reward, but now he is free to do them because they're good.

And similarly, there's a parable about the Baal Shem Tov, moping because he screws up so often. Him being a religious type, it suddenly hits him; if I love God, what need do I have of Heaven? You could extend that "love God" phrase to being about any enaction of good.

I'll shut up now, 'cause this stuff can go on forever...

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I love both of those. Thank you.

[catarzyna.livejournal.com]

An example: when I bring marking home on the weekend, I'd consider myself to have fallen down on my work ethic if I didn't do it, because that's my job. Now, I occasionally don't do it even so. But it's against my morals not to, and I feel guilty about it because I don't measure up to my own standards when I don't do my marking. This work ethic is part habit, part Christian belief that God expects hard work of His people, part a sense of responsibility to my students and their parents. Again, though, fear of hell or hope of heaven don't really enter into that.

I can really relate to this!

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

A morality based on reward and punishment is inherently selfish, and that's not how I want to be.

My note:

In my opinion, morality based solely on reward and punishment has no room for faith. Only for logic.

Once faith is squeezed out, Bad Things happen.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

I concur. I think this is one of the reasons christianity often gets a very bad name: people who ordinarily do selfish things will fall back into that sort of behavior when under pressure, even if they say they are christians who only do what is right.