Post-morality is a situation in which a culture has abandoned morality for a system of quicker, easier judgements based on the whims of individuals. A couple high profile incidents recently include the violent and destructive riots in Britain, and the vandal flash-mobs in the United States. Similar events have been post-religion, as seen in Europe where religion has basically dwindled and been replaced by secular lives for individuals, openly rejecting faith, and in various failed states, such as the Soviet Union where government became the determinant of right and wrong, not morality, and the hedonistic Roman Empire, which went up in flames because the idea of decadence became so pervasive that no-one would sacrifice in order to defend the borders from the Visigoths and other marauders. While secular philosophy has tried to fill the void of religion for determining right and wrong, with interesting and meritorious offerings by the likes of Kant and Mills, culture seems to be taking an insidious turn.
Granted, not every age has had a proviso for morality- in the Dark Ages, feudalism meant that the vast majority had no consideration for independent action, but there was still respect for the law of the land, if only because of an iron hand, while the Papacy attempted to keep kings in line, while being severely addled by corruption within the church. While morality was not a constant concern, there was still great concern for doing what was right, even if only because the pope said it and therefore you had to or you would burn forever, or if you didn't follow the laws, the lord would come by and have your head chopped off. Still, even in this mess, there were still concerns about following some sort of code of ethics that encouraged the people to follow laws for more than just the consequences.
In the end, the pursuit of morality may have spelled its own downfall- the idea of relativism. Relativism is a frankly absurd idea that each person has their own code of right and wrong, because things can irrationally change from individual to individual (note the sarcasm). Most pre-modern ethicists would have been appalled by the idea that an individual can dictate morality, and for good reason. If everything is right and wrong based on the ideas of individuals, then there would be constant moral deadlock, because if I believe x is wrong, then I cannot let anyone do it, but if someone believes x is right, they cannot let me stop people from doing x. Besides that, everyone would agree that killing is wrong (hopefully), yet relativism defends people half a world away doing it because "they think it is right", which literally justifies every atrocity and almost every crime (some people know they're wrong and still act that way, which is interesting, but more complex than this post). Relativism dictates, on a fundamental level, that everything is right, but all except the most dedicated adherents would agree that someone robbing them would be wrong, because being robbed is a violation of their code.
However, while relativism is a potential cause of the issue, there is a more significant issue of justification and irresponsibility going on. A man in Britain who was arrested for planning riots and planned to appeal receiving a four year prison term thought it was disproportionate, but the riots have caused damages to many shops and the cost in stolen or destroyed property will greatly harm either business owners or the companies that insure them or both. The individual has been told not to worry about their actions, because they are simply not to be held responsible because they deserve something that they have not gotten. This entitlement attitude results in the idea that you can simply take what you want, regardless of the price. These individuals, according to the following article, have never owned their own property. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2846968.html While the article is heavily focused on the premise of owning property, the idea is that the rioters have no ties to possession or to personal responsibility- in addition, others aren't being considered for their full value as human beings. The idea of post-morality is that you do what you want- essentially a self-centered corruption of utilitarian ethics. People still make connections to others, making it harder to justify robbing a neighbor, but a stranger is much less important. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-17/world/uk.riot.sentences_1_riot-environment-sentences-looting/2?_s=PM:WORLD Sophie Willett, of the Howard League for Penal Reform, told CNN: "I think we must expect that participation in the public disturbances is an aggravating factor when you come before the courts. Stealing a bottle of water in the riot environment is different to going into you local shop and stealing a bottle of water. But, in that spirit we must apply some sort of proportion to this and actually we have to look at people's genuine, ongoing danger to the community and that is what we need to look at when we send people to prison." Notice the last sentence- the ongoing danger. The speaker states that people should be held less responsible because of the atmosphere of the crime. Granted, aggravating and mitigating factors are important in law, but the fact that you could rob a stranger, and get less punishment because you were just going along with a mob implies a degree of irrationality and justification.
My proposed solution to the matter is faith, because true Christianity teaches that you love your neighbor, or anyone, as yourself, but if you refuse faith as a compass, remember to hold others in high regard- they have the same feelings and thoughts as anyone else, and it is important to hold them responsible for their actions and to hold yourself responsible for your actions against them. Don't be willing to let a neighbor continue to do something that you know is wrong just because they think it is right, confront them, so that if you do something that is harmful they will confront you. Once society can openly debate on what offends us or what harms us, and confront the perpetrators, we can hold people responsible for their actions. Don't be willing to let others ruin their lives because it seems alright or they are willing to take actions that you believe are wrong. A degree of confrontation is necessary to insure that there is open discourse. However, do not hold others in debt because of their actions, because the power for justice has been given to the government. Do not enforce your views over others, but solve issues through open discourse and never do anything to others that you would not want others to do to you. Yes, this is a long rant to support the golden rule, but it is important now as ever before to hold up this principle and understand the danger of apathy- complacency has never led to success or happiness, and ignorance and surrender have led to atrocity. Be aware of the importance of actions, so that you will not be willing to idly drift through life, being fine with whatever.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
What is Freedom?
Freedom is a complicated subject, but also the basis for most schools of thought. Religion requires the ability to choose between right and wrong in order to function, but philosophy also assumes that there is an intrinsic nature of free will in order to make decisions (otherwise ends or means wouldn't matter, because what we are going to do is what we are going to do), but very rarely is the nature of freedom analyzed beyond either a lack of servitude or the ability to make decisions. However, what is the nature of being free beyond the physical or philosophical? There are more levels to freedom than simply making our own choices.
I propose that freedom is wanting to do what you should do. I believe that there is one correct (or various correct, depending on the situation) way to act, at least concerning ethics. Freedom means a lack of coercion that would attempt to prevent you choosing to do that action. Essentially, I could allowed to make only one choice a day, but if I could make the right choice at that branch, without coercion, I would be free. If I was given a thousand opportunities, but made a wrong one because I was lured into it, I would not be free. However, making a wrong decision of my own accord is an act of freedom (though in that context I would rather be a slave, unable to choose.) While this is a depressing view of freedom, the premise extends beyond narrow philosophical allusions. Freedom in my view extends beyond that, a complete freedom- physical, mental, and philosophical. This means three things.
First, there can be no tangible force preventing me from making the right decision. If I was restrained, and couldn't help someone who was injured, I would not be free to make that choice and therefore would not be free. Furthermore, there could be no threat of violence, reprimand, or punishment that would deter me from making the right choice- though hopefully the impetus for the proper course of action would outweigh the negative stimuli. Even if I made the decision and was punished for it, I would not be free, because making the right decision had negative consequences, designed to deter me from doing so again, or in more severe cases deal damage to me so that I would be less able to act in the future. You will notice that I do not care if I am forced to do what is right, such as following laws, because I am not forced to go against my ideals. Note that my nature is to do what is wrong, but if I am prevented from being able to choose what is not right, I am not impaired, I am aided. Again, depressing, but not once you think about the consequences of wrong actions.
Second, there can be no mental persuasion that is holding me in sway. These are more varied, from bribes and incentives to addiction, trauma, stress, and even mental conditioning (i.e. punishment for doing the action in the past). If I act out of a neurological urge resulting from addiction, I am not free (presuming the action is wrong), or if I do wrong because of a personal incentive or bribe I am not free to choose because the choice, normally a split decision, is weighted in the favor of what is wrong. While these *DO NOT* justify doing harm, they are limitations of freedom, but even a prisoner is held accountable for his actions, and growing up in a family of thieves does not justify theft, but does instil an idea that theft is acceptable. However, being conditioned by punishment to deter from what is wrong is still freedom, because it prompts the correct response. Certainly being punished for stealing is not wrong, and the resulting deterrence is also wrong. In order to invalidate at least this portion of the argument, it would be necessary to state that the threat of prison or other punitive measures is wrong.
Third, there can be no philosophical strings attached- meaning that there can be no "set up" of the situation. There can be no condition that makes the situation wrong. Each action must be considered entirely independent of the context- otherwise, an individual begins to execute justice. It would be wrong to deny help to a wounded murderer, even though they have guilt that could condemn them to death. Furthermore, there cannot be an unreasonable expectation of knowledge. If helping the wounded murderer would result in the murderer overpowering the doctor and then escaping to kill again, but the doctor has no way to know that the wounded individual is a murderer, the doctor cannot be held accountable. However, helping a murderer and then allowing him to escape knowing that he is a criminal is wrong, since this thwarts justice. However, the justice must be executed by the state. This is not to say that individuals cannot help the state, the doctor would be obligated to restrain or detain the murderer, but could not arrest and execute the man. Similarly, anyone doing something that is harmful should be restrained- a rioter should be restrained by anyone capable of doing so, but should not be arrested and thrown in prison by a bystander, because this bypasses justice. In the absence of government, vigilantism is justified as the only method of justice, but while government exists, it has a monopoly over punitive force unless otherwise granted (i.e. parents disciplining their children). To pertain more to freedom, if I am forced to do wrong because I helped someone in need, and that individual used my aid to harm others, but I had no knowledge of his evil intent, then I am not culpable of that situation. Furthermore, if I do wrong to a someone because they have done something to harm me, I am still doing wrong, because I did something to take justice into my own hands, which is inherently wrong. However, if I shot and killed someone because they were about to shoot me or someone else, I am not culpable, because the justice of government means nothing if the harm could have been prevented. However, if I shot and killed someone when I could have merely subdued him without any harm coming of it, I have taken justice into my own hands, and have done wrong. However, the philosophical situation cannot dictate the action's goodness- if the suspect I subdued later killed someone, I am not guilty because I chose not to kill him. The situations stand independently because of the freedom of choice- the past is done and gone, and I as an individual should not hold others accountable unless they have done a crime against me or society and have not been punished, and I cannot act to prevent something in the distant future, because individuals have the right to choose and the future is not written entirely by the present (just because someone stole from me doesn't mean I can assume they will steal again, and though it does not mean I should ignore their past actions, I cannot assume they will always steal.)
To summarize, freedom means your decisions are not influenced by another and not manipulated by outside forces, but can be influenced by protections that only prevent you from doing what is wrong. The reason for this is that when you do what is wrong, there are consequences. A safeguard that keeps me from stealing limits my options, but not my freedom, but a barrier to helping others in need limits my freedom.
What is right and wrong is a much lengthier discussion.
I propose that freedom is wanting to do what you should do. I believe that there is one correct (or various correct, depending on the situation) way to act, at least concerning ethics. Freedom means a lack of coercion that would attempt to prevent you choosing to do that action. Essentially, I could allowed to make only one choice a day, but if I could make the right choice at that branch, without coercion, I would be free. If I was given a thousand opportunities, but made a wrong one because I was lured into it, I would not be free. However, making a wrong decision of my own accord is an act of freedom (though in that context I would rather be a slave, unable to choose.) While this is a depressing view of freedom, the premise extends beyond narrow philosophical allusions. Freedom in my view extends beyond that, a complete freedom- physical, mental, and philosophical. This means three things.
First, there can be no tangible force preventing me from making the right decision. If I was restrained, and couldn't help someone who was injured, I would not be free to make that choice and therefore would not be free. Furthermore, there could be no threat of violence, reprimand, or punishment that would deter me from making the right choice- though hopefully the impetus for the proper course of action would outweigh the negative stimuli. Even if I made the decision and was punished for it, I would not be free, because making the right decision had negative consequences, designed to deter me from doing so again, or in more severe cases deal damage to me so that I would be less able to act in the future. You will notice that I do not care if I am forced to do what is right, such as following laws, because I am not forced to go against my ideals. Note that my nature is to do what is wrong, but if I am prevented from being able to choose what is not right, I am not impaired, I am aided. Again, depressing, but not once you think about the consequences of wrong actions.
Second, there can be no mental persuasion that is holding me in sway. These are more varied, from bribes and incentives to addiction, trauma, stress, and even mental conditioning (i.e. punishment for doing the action in the past). If I act out of a neurological urge resulting from addiction, I am not free (presuming the action is wrong), or if I do wrong because of a personal incentive or bribe I am not free to choose because the choice, normally a split decision, is weighted in the favor of what is wrong. While these *DO NOT* justify doing harm, they are limitations of freedom, but even a prisoner is held accountable for his actions, and growing up in a family of thieves does not justify theft, but does instil an idea that theft is acceptable. However, being conditioned by punishment to deter from what is wrong is still freedom, because it prompts the correct response. Certainly being punished for stealing is not wrong, and the resulting deterrence is also wrong. In order to invalidate at least this portion of the argument, it would be necessary to state that the threat of prison or other punitive measures is wrong.
Third, there can be no philosophical strings attached- meaning that there can be no "set up" of the situation. There can be no condition that makes the situation wrong. Each action must be considered entirely independent of the context- otherwise, an individual begins to execute justice. It would be wrong to deny help to a wounded murderer, even though they have guilt that could condemn them to death. Furthermore, there cannot be an unreasonable expectation of knowledge. If helping the wounded murderer would result in the murderer overpowering the doctor and then escaping to kill again, but the doctor has no way to know that the wounded individual is a murderer, the doctor cannot be held accountable. However, helping a murderer and then allowing him to escape knowing that he is a criminal is wrong, since this thwarts justice. However, the justice must be executed by the state. This is not to say that individuals cannot help the state, the doctor would be obligated to restrain or detain the murderer, but could not arrest and execute the man. Similarly, anyone doing something that is harmful should be restrained- a rioter should be restrained by anyone capable of doing so, but should not be arrested and thrown in prison by a bystander, because this bypasses justice. In the absence of government, vigilantism is justified as the only method of justice, but while government exists, it has a monopoly over punitive force unless otherwise granted (i.e. parents disciplining their children). To pertain more to freedom, if I am forced to do wrong because I helped someone in need, and that individual used my aid to harm others, but I had no knowledge of his evil intent, then I am not culpable of that situation. Furthermore, if I do wrong to a someone because they have done something to harm me, I am still doing wrong, because I did something to take justice into my own hands, which is inherently wrong. However, if I shot and killed someone because they were about to shoot me or someone else, I am not culpable, because the justice of government means nothing if the harm could have been prevented. However, if I shot and killed someone when I could have merely subdued him without any harm coming of it, I have taken justice into my own hands, and have done wrong. However, the philosophical situation cannot dictate the action's goodness- if the suspect I subdued later killed someone, I am not guilty because I chose not to kill him. The situations stand independently because of the freedom of choice- the past is done and gone, and I as an individual should not hold others accountable unless they have done a crime against me or society and have not been punished, and I cannot act to prevent something in the distant future, because individuals have the right to choose and the future is not written entirely by the present (just because someone stole from me doesn't mean I can assume they will steal again, and though it does not mean I should ignore their past actions, I cannot assume they will always steal.)
To summarize, freedom means your decisions are not influenced by another and not manipulated by outside forces, but can be influenced by protections that only prevent you from doing what is wrong. The reason for this is that when you do what is wrong, there are consequences. A safeguard that keeps me from stealing limits my options, but not my freedom, but a barrier to helping others in need limits my freedom.
What is right and wrong is a much lengthier discussion.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
The Importance of Worship to Faith
I'm a ministry major, so if you read this blog, even though it's just random thoughts, you'll probably see some ministry stuff. If you want to change your life for the better, go ahead and read it. If you don't like religion or faith, feel free to click away. I won't be offended and it's only your loss.
Many people don't understand faith, even those who profess to have faith in Christ. Frequently, faith is treated as simply a ceremony performed on Sundays that covers you for the week or month or time between visits, and while this might be true for the purpose of salvation (the Christian faith holds that if you believe in Christ as savior, no matter what you've done or what you do, as long as you look to Christ for salvation, you will be saved), it is not the best way to live your life. Even in my relatively comfortable life, the difference from when I treated faith as a ritual to when I actively engaged in my faith in Christ is a night and day difference in how I feel and view the world.
For others, active engagement is a check-box, wherein you devote a half hour to reading the Bible or praying, but it's simply a chore or ritual. While this is probably better than the former, simply going through the motions is frequently insufficient to significantly change your life. While many things are beneficial to spiritual growth, and any involvement is better than none, a ritual is a sorry devotion because it's like punching a clock to get paid. You do it, but it doesn't really seem like something you would want to do, and for good reason. The Bible can be hard to read, especially in more literal translations that leave some grammar and context to an individuals deciphering and research or the genealogy or law chapters (these are indeed worth reading, but can be difficult and painful to go through, especially if going for comprehension or thoroughness). However, while this can bring a degree of spiritual satisfaction, I propose an additional easy supplement to the touted prayer and reading routine: worship.
Worship is defined as to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion, but in all practicality it can simply be paying respect to God by saying "This is Your creation, and it is good." There are a myriad of ways to do this, ranging from singing hymns and songs in church, to actively worshiping through music (even listening), or simply acknowledging a greatness about something and ascribing what is good of it to God. While not taking the place of prayer or reading, worship can be just as beneficial in helping your faith grow.
My personal form of worship is listening to music and singing along to the lines of praise. I've found some songs that speak profoundly to me and always remind me of what is important in life, and make an effort to not only listen to these songs, but engage in thinking about what the lines are and what they mean. Everyone can have their own form of worship, and there's no real restriction on what worship can and cannot be (excepting, of course, sin, which is anything that is displeasing to God). Worship is also more than simply an emotional experience or spiritual discipline, but also a precedent- as Christians, we are called to be living temples, meaning that we are to be glorifying to God, and impressive through our actions and words as the temple was through stone and gold. Worship is also doing things that are pleasing to God, and abstinence from sin. Perpetual worship can be as easy as doing what is right to other people because they are to be treated as Christ, and avoiding harm or anything impure or sinful that would displease God.
Understand that I haven't taken any theology classes yet, but from what I've found in my own walk, I hope this will be helpful to you or at the very least that it will not be harmful.
Many people don't understand faith, even those who profess to have faith in Christ. Frequently, faith is treated as simply a ceremony performed on Sundays that covers you for the week or month or time between visits, and while this might be true for the purpose of salvation (the Christian faith holds that if you believe in Christ as savior, no matter what you've done or what you do, as long as you look to Christ for salvation, you will be saved), it is not the best way to live your life. Even in my relatively comfortable life, the difference from when I treated faith as a ritual to when I actively engaged in my faith in Christ is a night and day difference in how I feel and view the world.
For others, active engagement is a check-box, wherein you devote a half hour to reading the Bible or praying, but it's simply a chore or ritual. While this is probably better than the former, simply going through the motions is frequently insufficient to significantly change your life. While many things are beneficial to spiritual growth, and any involvement is better than none, a ritual is a sorry devotion because it's like punching a clock to get paid. You do it, but it doesn't really seem like something you would want to do, and for good reason. The Bible can be hard to read, especially in more literal translations that leave some grammar and context to an individuals deciphering and research or the genealogy or law chapters (these are indeed worth reading, but can be difficult and painful to go through, especially if going for comprehension or thoroughness). However, while this can bring a degree of spiritual satisfaction, I propose an additional easy supplement to the touted prayer and reading routine: worship.
Worship is defined as to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion, but in all practicality it can simply be paying respect to God by saying "This is Your creation, and it is good." There are a myriad of ways to do this, ranging from singing hymns and songs in church, to actively worshiping through music (even listening), or simply acknowledging a greatness about something and ascribing what is good of it to God. While not taking the place of prayer or reading, worship can be just as beneficial in helping your faith grow.
My personal form of worship is listening to music and singing along to the lines of praise. I've found some songs that speak profoundly to me and always remind me of what is important in life, and make an effort to not only listen to these songs, but engage in thinking about what the lines are and what they mean. Everyone can have their own form of worship, and there's no real restriction on what worship can and cannot be (excepting, of course, sin, which is anything that is displeasing to God). Worship is also more than simply an emotional experience or spiritual discipline, but also a precedent- as Christians, we are called to be living temples, meaning that we are to be glorifying to God, and impressive through our actions and words as the temple was through stone and gold. Worship is also doing things that are pleasing to God, and abstinence from sin. Perpetual worship can be as easy as doing what is right to other people because they are to be treated as Christ, and avoiding harm or anything impure or sinful that would displease God.
Understand that I haven't taken any theology classes yet, but from what I've found in my own walk, I hope this will be helpful to you or at the very least that it will not be harmful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)