I had some thoughts last night in regards to compelled morality. I'm sure it's nothing new, but I just thought I'd share, for my own sake if nothing else.

Most of us here who do not believe that the Bible is an inspired book reject it because it violates our natural moral sense. For me personally, the wedge issue was homosexuality. I was troubled by the violence and genocide of the OT, but I was comforted by the fact that we are under the New Covenant. I was troubled by the submission of women, the reliance on guilt and shame as motivators, and the implication that only Christians would be saved. But I could wiggle around all of those. The one thing I could not wiggle out of, however, was that the Bible flatly and unconditionally condemned homosexuality, and I believe that the acceptance of homosexuality was one of the great moral victories of the twentieth century.

But a fundamentalist Christian will reply that we should subject our moral sense to God's. If he says that something is wrong, we should humbly accept that and change our viewpoint. But even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is from God, there is still a major problem with that view.

We don't blame people for what they do at gunpoint. If a bank robber takes a hostage and forces them to carry the loot or drive the getaway car, we don't charge the hostage as an accomplice.

The same thing is true in reverse. If a thief steals a lady's purse, and then is forced at gunpoint to return it, does he deserve any moral credit for doing so? Obviously not.

So, if I believe that it's unethical for me to condemn homosexuals, or shun people because they were disfellowshipped by a judicial committee, or so forth, then is there any moral value in my doing so because a supernatural force tells me to? Not that I can see.

Now there is a key caveat here. If I believe that this supernatural power is entitled to set standards of right and wrong, then that's a moral choice. E.g. if a JW felt in his heart that homosexuality was okay, but believed that his heart was wrong and the Bible was right, that would be a moral choice on his part.

But personally, I don't believe that the proclamations of a supernatural being can make the unjust fair, any more than they can make two plus two equal five. So therefore, even if the Dubs are right, and the Bible really is inspired of God, there would still be no moral credit to me for obeying it, because I would be like the thief being honest at gunpoint.

Thanks Phantom!

As far as the second-to-last parr... I'm trying to let the JWs off the hook easy. Some would argue that everything I said applies to JWs (and other fundies), since they are essentially serving God at gunpoint. But I'm arguing that it's different because they actually believe (at last, some of them do) that God has the right to define morality.

Let me illustrate the difference. Let's say that Alice and Bob both like to smoke marijuana. Alice, however, doesn't do it because she's afraid of going to jail. That's not a moral choice; it's simply self-preservation. Bob, on the other hand, doesn't smoke because he believes he should obey the law, even if he disagrees with it. That is a moral choice.

So, if I were to obey the Bible merely because I'm afraid of dying at Armageddon (or going to hell, or being left behind at the rapture), that is not a moral choice. But if a JW obeys the Bible--even when it doesn't seem right to him--because he believes that it's a book from God and that God actually has the right to define what's good and bad, that is a moral choice.

Clear as mud?

Interesting. .. I guess the dub would say that if god says a thing, then it must be right and fair and moral. It would just be that we may not appreciate it yet.

Yet, to follow a concept it has to come from the heart . It must be a visceral internal belief and not just "Head knowledge" . I agree that compelled morality ,perhaps out of fear of punishment , is no real virtue at all .

The "Morality" or lack of it contained in the Armageddon doctrine was the starting point of my questioning and then rejecting the WT teachings .

 

So you're saying that the choice to give up one's own moral agency, to sign over your voting proxy to someone else (even the "big guy"), is a moral choice in and of itself.

Absolutely. But I would stipulate that it's not the last moral choice they make. Every time they feel their heartstrings tugged, every time their conscience twinges and they stuff it back down the disposal, they commit the same error over and over.

"For what is good, and what is not good, Phaedrus - do we need anyone to tell us these things?"

Socrates, quoted by Robert Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

I think logic alone doesn't bring one closer to whatever morality God reveals.

I mean, logic often brings pragmatism and utilitarian results, and sometimes we suspect that those results are not moral.  Hitler's Final Solution is such an example, I think.

If God created morality and then said, "you guys gotta follow this invention of mine, since I'm God, or else," then it's hardly a credit to obey from fear.   Real morality is an expression thru time and in our cultures of various ways we express love to one another; not mere "I'm-ok-you're-ok kindness--have fun and just go do your own thing" but a passionate caring about the well-being of people. 

That is why I think people differ on some hard issues, because on one level the most caring thing looks like blanket acceptance of every behavior in order to affirm a person, something we all want to do.  Aother person's perspective is that certain behaviors fall short of the better good.  And arguments all commence! 

I think we need to first choose whether we CARE about the issue of morality or not.  There's more people that just care about being "right" about their pet issue, than looking past the issues and just wanting to moral, whatever that is.  The attitude of a heart is so much more important, I am sure, than crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's in behavior because of fear.

An interesting thread!

bebu

Perhaps, but it would be a moral choice based on the manipulative teachings of others. It does not allow the individual to research the subject and determine if his current belief system is accurate.

I am a prime example of this. While I was a JW, I knew I was gay. I did everything I could to avoid contact with other homosexuals, because I believed that the Bible taught homosexuality to be a sin. I did "slip" once while I was a JW and had a brief encounter with another man (for which I was given private reproof).

After I left the JWs, I independently studied the scriptures in the original languages and discovered that the supposed condemnations against homosexuals were not valid translations of those passages, that they were actually condemnations of pagan fertility ritual, etc.

Moral choices do not necessarily mean informed choices.

 

1984 is a great example.

An interesting fact is that, even though people have disagreed about what is moral (e.g, how many wives a man might have), there is a touchstone here in that we all understand the concept of morality (all people have some kind of understanding that a man may not just have any woman he wants).

In other words, we all appeal to moral authority in some way.  It is hard for us to lay down our ideas of justice, for example, as an odd human phenomenon, but we really believe it exists independent of ourselves.  Otherwise, justice is a concept that we may as well toss out.

bebu

 

Great points, all