![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeastFear-based morality is a rather bizarre concept to me. By "fear-based morality" i mean morality which is based on fear of punishment by, for example, some spiritual entity or force. And more specifically, i'm talking about those who claim moral superiority because their morality is fear-based: for example, Christians who claim that atheism inevitably leads to moral decay because 'obviously' people will do whatever the heck they want unless they are bound to Christian morality through the fear of eternal damnation. Yet, contrary to the apparent beliefs of the Pope1, history has all too thoroughly demonstrated that being Christian in no way automatically leads to moral behaviour2.
i feel that people who act morally because it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not they'll be punished in some form for doing otherwise, are in fact more moral than people who are only acting morally because they fear the consequences of not doing so. i simply can't comprehend how people in the latter category could possibly regard themselves as truly moral people - behaviourally moral, perhaps, but certainly not fundamentally moral.
1. In this regard, i would like to direct the Pope's attention to John 8:7. :-P
2. As lampooned in this comic, and which was not recognised by the US House of Representatives when it recently passed the bill "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith": although the bill correctly rejected "bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide", it (unsurprisingly) failed to mention bigotry and persecution of others by Christians, both in the United States and worldwide.
i feel that people who act morally because it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not they'll be punished in some form for doing otherwise, are in fact more moral than people who are only acting morally because they fear the consequences of not doing so. i simply can't comprehend how people in the latter category could possibly regard themselves as truly moral people - behaviourally moral, perhaps, but certainly not fundamentally moral.
1. In this regard, i would like to direct the Pope's attention to John 8:7. :-P
2. As lampooned in this comic, and which was not recognised by the US House of Representatives when it recently passed the bill "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith": although the bill correctly rejected "bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide", it (unsurprisingly) failed to mention bigotry and persecution of others by Christians, both in the United States and worldwide.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-14 04:22 (UTC)I do tend to use 'ethics' instead, to save confusion when out in the Whirled though.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-16 03:32 (UTC)*nod* Fair enough. i tend to use the word 'ethics' myself overall, since 'morality' has been framed by fundamentalists as solely their preserve (although, see below); but in this particular instance, i was wanting to have a go at so-called 'moral' people on their own ground. :-)
Re. 'morality' being framed by fundies as solely their preserve, i think we progressives actually need to challenge that framing. For example, we could ask how 'moral' it is to be more worried about nudity on tv than about the many many thousands of people who are homeless through no choice of their own.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-16 03:45 (UTC)Yes, it sucks that the moonies etc stole the word 'moral', but I suggest they don't actually think properly...
I would rather go around them than engage with them, but each to hir own battle!
no subject
Date: 2007-12-14 08:44 (UTC)Much Love,
Sacred Harlot X.