moved from Cerebus discussion -- the morality fork

[ntsheep]

I agree that wealth itself is not evil, bad, or immoral. Like most things in this world, it's how one chooses to use it that defines it qualities. Using your wealth to provide for yourself and others is good, using it to provide only for yourself and burdening, depriving, or harming others is bad. I think when it comes to teaching the next generation there's a whole lot more than just passing on your values and any self serving goals you have. The universal goal is to make sure that they have what they need to take care of them selves. As a community, the universal goal is that it continues on. I don't think passing on morals takes away from someone finding their own way in life, I in fact believe the reverse. A good moral compass helps us navigate the strange and winding road called life. Without it we will wander aimlessly and lost most of the time.

As for Aesop contributor, go to the link below and read a bit and you may find you know more than you think. The fables have traveled so far throughout the world and been retold so many times you've probably encountered them and not known it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop%27s_Fables

[grävling]

Okay, back to 'imposing morality'. Things have been stressful here (where I live, not these forums), and I have been busy.

Here is an interesting study:
books.google.se/books?id=4PRxbnVdFRsC&pg=PT202&lpg=PT202&dq=goldfish+crackers+broccoli+experiment&source=bl&ots=zkE6yAFG2F&sig=GyUr7F7MF86M93ZKcY-RQI_zgpg&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=bCPaVL3SBIu-ygPXo4LwDQ&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=goldfish%20crackers%20broccoli%20experiment&f=false

Take some small children, some brocolli (which they hated) and some goldfish crackers (which they liked).

They presented them with a researcher, who ate both and then expressed delight with one and disgust with the other. And then the children
got a question. XXX (the researcher) is hungry. What should she (or he) eat?

The 14 month olds, uniformly, pointed at the crackers. They seem to have internalised an extremely literal working of the Golden Rule
-- do unto others as you would have them do unto you -- "If I were hungry, I would want the goldfish crackers, so give them that!"

Most of the 18 month olds were more sophisticated. They pointed at whatever food the experimenter had expressed a preference for.
They could make the abstraction -- "Even though broccoli tastes bad, you like it. Therefore when you are hungry we should feed you
broccoli." They seem to have already managed a more complicated rendering of the Golden Rule -- do unto others as they would be done
to, just in the same way that you want others to do unto you as you would be done to".

What Jesus -- or Rabbi Hillel, the founder of the Rabinnical tradition in Judaism, would think of this, I do not know.
Rabbi Hillel is tradtionally said to be born in Babylon, but to die in Jerusalem at CE 10 He is popularly known as the author of two sayings: (1) "If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for my own self, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?" and (2) the expression of the ethic of reciprocity, or "Golden Rule": "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Thus it is really tempting to believe that the religious elders that Jesus the young child argued religion with included Hillel. You only
have to fiddle the accepted-dates about 3 years, and we know for certain that we do not know the real date of Jesus' birth. If not Hillel, then
it was certain to be people who had heard and were influenced by Hillel. Because Hillel was as influential as it could be. And belief
in Hillel's teachings was one of the things that the Pharisees (liberal wing of Judaism at Jesus' time at the temple) mostly believed
in while the Conservative, old wealth and status Jews, the Sadducees , well ....
the truth is that we don't know much about what they believed at all, because in CE 70, with the destruction of the temple in
Jerusalem, the Sadducees, fell out of history. Their wealth, status and power were all connected to the temple, and when it fell so
did they.

But the teaching of Rabbi Hillel is the foundation of the modern Jewish religion(s) (expressions of the same religion if you prefer).

I am, in the interest of morality a little more interested in his first pronouncement than his second.
If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for my own self, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?

We go back to what I wrote before. This paragraph.

Some researchers got a bunch of 14 and 18 month children. They also got a supply of goldfish crackers (bleah!) and brocoli (also bleah, but less so). However, my opinions do not count. Nearly all of the children thought that the goldfish crackers tasted great (I will teach them
better) and that the broccoli tasted bad (they are doing fine with this).

The very small children already got the idea that helping somebody was a good idea.

I don't think that this morality of helping others was imposed on them. But, when I expressed those (in parens) opinions, we
get to the real problem of raising children in a world of differing moralities. My beliefs about the yukkiness of goldfish
crackers and broccoli were not meant to be taken seriously.

But you can easily imagine -- or know -- children who decided to hate tomatoes because father does. the idea might be:
I respect you and you don't eat X therefore I won't either --
which is a positive thing, when children decide to not eat meat like their vegetarian dad does --
out of a shared principle

---

but more likely it is 'here! I won't eat bananas either! And be like you! and you will like me more as being like you!'

which is not a positive thing.

As parents you get a rough job.

You need to value your kids for being themselves, when the world is out there wanting to reward them for being something else.
And you have to be willing to see your children grow and change, even when they grow and change away from you.

Not all growth is positive. We need to put up with sideways and backwards growth sometimes. But not always, for instance, the growth into an addiction is rarely positive.


So, enough for now.

[contributor]

I haven't yet thanked you grävling for indulging all of my questions. So, thanks for your responses. I really appreciate them. I am still hoping to share more of my own thoughts at some point, but February is proving to be a really draining month here too, so I haven't felt much like entertaining serious thoughts when it's not absolutely necessary.

[grävling]

It's a stressful thing around here, too --
so do not sweat it.

But also, this is not a private conversation for us (with watchers).

May all others who care to feel invited to join in. You are most welcome.

[ntsheep]

Sorry to hear you guys are bummed out. I do hope whatever is causing your troubles goes away soon. grävling, if what's bothering you is to many crackers and brocolli, send them to me as I enjoy them very much.

contributor, you didn't mention what troubles you, but if it's a cute red head, send her too

[contributor]

Oh, my stuff is all just work related. Funny that you mention a cute red head. I do have one, it's just that he's my son who's 2 years old.

[ntsheep]

Don't send him contributor! I don't want to deprive a father of his son

[En1gma]

This is honestly a great conversation.

Personally I have no issue imposing morals on a younger generation, in fact, I'm all for it. I have a 19 month old, and I've been ruminating on what kind of person he will be. The more I think of it, the more I realize that this completely falls on the shoulders of my fiancee and I to facilitate. This being said, I worry about the decisions I make in terms of wether or not it is best for him to learn a certain action. I'm sure all of this seems like it is a no brainer, but to have every single action one makes being imprinted on a young child, you really start to second guess your own morality and wether or not you want your child to act/react/speak/treat others like you do. 

This being said, the wrong morals are almost easier to instill than the 'good' morals. I never realized how quick to anger I could be before I had my son, for example. We have two 14 year old twins at home, one of whom is nonverbal, the other is over verbal at times. He and I have butted heads more times than I can recall, mostly because he lives by a different set of morals than I do. He is very materialistic, and believes that he should be privy to every facet of my life, which I am strongly opposed to, as my set of morals was in a stark contrast to his: My mother reacted extremely negatively to me asking these types of prying questions, and as a result I adopted this trait, I am a very private person who doesn't appreciate unnecessary scrutiny or scrutiny just for the sake of it. 

I have asked my soon to be stepson not to act like that in front of my son, because I don't want him to act like his older brother in this way- I can't stand that he is so prying and entitled (he is only 14 and thinks he is on the same level as an adult) and I refuse to allow my child to act like that, because I find it to be disrespectful and a poor moral value. 

I understand also, that wrong morals can be instilled even though the parents or those around a child may not think they are wrong, such as racism, bigotry, etc. and this is where I think morality has its biggest flaws. In this day and age, such hateful or ignorant traits have no place in society, yet children growing up in a racist household for example, almost always adopt the same hatreds their caretakers share. 

Things like this are a detriment to the world we live in, and I cringe to think that parents take such steps to perpetuate such hatreds. When it comes to morality, I learned that it can be relative... These parents don't know anything but these deep seeded hatreds, and therefore it is ok that they teach their children to be like them, even though everyone looking at them thinks otherwise.

I'm a firm believer that each culture should have their own values and morals- that is what keeps our cultures separate and unique. To have one single moral code of conduct could never come to be, as this would fly in the face of every culture who doesn't share those same values. And that's ok. What I wish would change within the separate cultures is the thought that another culture that doesn't share the same beliefs or morals is wrong, and therefore must be forced to 'see the light'. This is the cause of so many wars, so many murders, so much pain in the world, and for what? To say that so they might change the mind of just a few, many must die or suffer. To me, this is an unforgivable grievance, and one that I morally cannot share with many of the world's religions. For Muslims and Christians (just one example that springs readily to mind) to be in perpetual war with one another over what, two books with essentially the EXACT SAME MESSAGE but with a few insurmountable differences seems ignorant to me, and goes against essential principles of each of their respective books.

I'll wrap up now, but I wanted to weigh in on this, as it's something that has been constantly on my mind since my son was born, and something that I am still struggling to improve for myself, and therefore my child.

[ntsheep]

You make great points En1gma. I also agree with the facts that some people never get exposed to other ideas or morals and that just by watching each other we learn habits that depending on your ideas are either good or bad.

I still don't like the term "imposing morals", but that's just my opinion. I don't expect others to agree with it. We all have different opinions and learning to respect them is a moral that I believe in. As parents we feel a need to teach our children. We don't think of this as imposing. We believe that we're doing the right thing by trying to show them the ways they should act.

A good example of different values can be found in some posts in the anime thread. In Japan 13 is the legal age of consent. This is seen at times in anime\manga where to Americans see characters that appear to be too young in adult relationships and causes a lot of confusion about what anime\manga is. It has also led to some interesting visual gags that convey way a scene is about. I'll put the link at the bottom for those that want to have a good laugh or see some contrasting cultural values.


startradersrpg.proboards.com/thread/9453/anime-thread

[contributor]

Maybe this thread should be renamed Lurker's Inquisition because all I ever do is ask questions. En1gma thanks for the post, this whole subject is interesting to me and I think that it's interesting that it came up in the context of having kids, because I think it's easy for the world to make sense until we have them. Then we suddenly start questioning a lot of things we though we knew and looking at them with new eyes, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

On the subject of other cultures having their own values and morals that's a tough one. It's hard for me say that "well, for us, we think women should be free to decide what they want to wear in public but in other countries they oblige their women to go out in black sacks and that's all fine and good for them because it's their culture." It seems to me that we've associated moral disagreement with a kind of violence. We seem to assume that if we say we believe something is wrong we have to somehow take up physical or verbal arms and destroy those who practice it. Might there be some other way of having a conversation about morals that doesn't gloss over the real differences between us and the fact that we really do believe certain things are good and certain things are bad (otherwise how could we teach this to our kids?)?

[En1gma]

contributor- I would argue that any conversation involving morality is intrinsically inter-woven in the core of how each culture is separate. While each culture has similar moral values, the subtle differences are what set us apart... Like I said, the morality you grow up in becomes what you know, and while on the outside we may not agree with them, such as wearing the burka, this is something their culture has done for hundreds of years, and to them is the normal.

Should a culture decide that it is time to shift their morals, you see things like the 'Arab Spring', where entire populations have an awakening of sorts, trying to change the very way they live. Suddenly the strict adherence to religion and the resulting dictatorship that it often brings, ends, and it ends with a change in values, which becomes the way the involved generations will teach their children, thus changing their morals in the process.

In response to the last part of your post, I believe religious texts, as well as as great writings that become important enough to base a society off of, are great places to begin in the search for what humanity in its different forms has deemed 'right and wrong'. There has been a push away from following these texts, and the results I feel are rippling from that center of what I feel is the overall decline in morality. Suddenly things that were enshrined so to speak ate no longer cared about. Take 'honor thy mother and your father' for example. I feel that the upsurge in children having less and less respect for their parents, and then any adult, is directly associated with the decline of widely used 'moral texts' (which is more how I view the bible/koran/and every other religious text). Without these ancient guidelines, I feel like morality is on the decline, and that children are learning morality from the worst sources: Media, other bratty children whose parents have let the child's do and say whatever they think without reprimand, and parents who have little to no moral compass themselves.

Whew. I know that I may seem like I'm a large advocate for religion, which is partly true. I do go to church, but I prefer not to align myself too firmly with any one religion, because I believe them all to be true, and THEREFORE the same by association. I'll reiterate again that I really only refer to various texts as a moral reference, not as scientific or historic texts. These are after all, books written by man, for man, but I fully appreciate the moral values that have been passed down for generations.

[mataeus]

Feb 12, 2015 2:41:24 GMT -5 contributor said:

On the subject of other cultures having their own values and morals that's a tough one. It's hard for me say that "well, for us, we think women should be free to decide what they want to wear in public but in other countries they oblige their women to go out in black sacks and that's all fine and good for them because it's their culture." It seems to me that we've associated moral disagreement with a kind of violence. We seem to assume that if we say we believe something is wrong we have to somehow take up physical or verbal arms and destroy those who practice it. Might there be some other way of having a conversation about morals that doesn't gloss over the real differences between us and the fact that we really do believe certain things are good and certain things are bad (otherwise how could we teach this to our kids?)?

This really hit home with me, as it is a constant source of frustration. We live in a world where a news reader called the terrorists in Paris 'activists' for crying out loud. Activists! As if they're supporting their beliefs! Fucking ridiculous.

No system of belief, whether religious or otherwise, should provide an excuse for abhorrent behaviour and criminal actions towards others. It's simply idiotic that members of the public, press and government should shy away from the truth: The terrorists who were in Paris are murderers and warmongers, and acting on their own insane ideals disguised as fanatical behaviour.

It just beggars belief that nations can hide behind a religion and commit atrocities while the rest of the world is scared of offending them.

"Oooooo, I can't believe you drew a cartoon of the [clearly insane and murderous bastard that he was] 'prophet' Muhammad! They will come and chop off our heads! It's your fault cartoonist! The world is disgusted!"

Get REAL people!
Fuck Muslim extremists and terrorists. It's not even a religion - it's violence disguised as a system of belief. The so called prophet they attempt to emulate was a horrible man, and the only claim he had of being God's messenger was one he made up himself - when the people of Mecca disbelieved him, he sneaked out of the city at night and made it his life's work to take out all who stood opposed to him.
Himself leading over two dozen campaigns, he executed countless people from various regions, tortured them, killed them - he even gave names to his weapons of war.
That's the man Muslims follow, which means that the religion is inherently not one of peace, but one of war.
The Quoran states it is a Muslim's duty to convert ALL PEOPLE to Islam, and those who refuse to do so must be killed. Straight forward and simple. And what is the Quoran? A series of horrific instructions in murder, torture, amputation and intolerance written around the madman Muhammad himself!
That's black and white, there's no arguing against it.
And that's not a religion - it's an unholy war against ANYONE who is different from them.

Islam is the only so-called religion in existence today where every individual splinter organisation is one of war and death. They are not arms of a unified religion - they are terrorist groups.

That's not to say every Muslim is a terrorist, but it IS to say that Islam is a terrorist organisation, and those Muslims who want peace and harmony (and there will be millions of them) are trapped in a belief system which enforces the exact opposite.

So, to any Muslim visitors who read this post, I say this: If you find the idea of cutting off a thief's hands abhorrent, if stoning women and beating your wife makes you feel sick, maybe you should try a different religion, because you're not cut out for Islam.

~M~

[contributor]

mataeus, I don't think we're on the same page here. In fact, what I think we really need is a way to discuss the different approaches to morality that doesn't involve ratcheting up the rhetoric to stratospheric heights. The example that I picked was just one that came readily to mind. I lived in the most populous Muslim country in the world for a couple of years and probably 90% of my friends were Muslims and I lived in a Muslim's house for awhile. I have to say that for most of them Islam is a way to raise your kids so that they don't do drugs, get anyone pregnant before marriage and get a decent job because they're a decent person. And as for the Quran, it's true that it does send mixed messages and it's interesting the note the difference between the Meccan and Medinan passages, but it is far from a handbook on terror. In many ways, if it were, I think it would have far fewer followers than it does today.

I will agree though that it's good for religious people, myself included, to be honest about their texts and what they find in them. Platitudes like Islam is a religion of Peace or Christianity has been at war with X (reason, science, women, Muslims etc.) for thousands of years, don't really go very far towards explaining what are pretty much irreducibly complex entities. Even the word "religion" itself is next to meaningless the more you try to define it. So, well, maybe the best thing to do is actually go have a conversation with somebody and believe that there is actually a lot we have in common in our moral values. Focus on those for awhile and then maybe ask some questions about the things we can't quite get our heads around.

[En1gma]

Without meaning to, you solidified my point to a 'T', mataeus.

These things are abhorrent to us because we have a COMPLETELY different social structure and a society that isn't 100% based on our religious texts. To us, these things are unacceptable, but to a society BORN AND RAISED (I'm not shouting, just emphasizing) living this way, it is simply the norm.

The Quran is NOT a book of hate, it is just like all other religious texts in the way that it is a MORAL COMPASS. What the splinter groups focus solely on are the few verses preaching jihad, and assume that this is the sole purpose of their religion. You don't think that these same types of verses cant be found in the bible? Instructions to stone adulterous women, that certain things are abominations, that some things are an executable offense. These archaic laws are no longer followed, with good reason. However, there are splinter groups of every religion that take their texts literally and to the farthest extremes. But this isn't what we are talking about here.

Morality is IMO passed down directly from the parents/caretakers, and secondarily from the society that one grows up in. You may be of one moral and societal background, but be raising a child in an entirely different, and sometimes conflicting moral setting.

My question therefore is how does one decide to teach morality to the child-
1) Do you raise them in your moral image, not worrying about the moral climes around you.
2) Do you raise them in the moral setting of the area you live in, with some of your own morals alongside your moral clime.
3) Do you try to teach them the best of both, so that they might best be accustomed to both how you expect them, and what is expected in the society in which you reside?

[mataeus]

Feb 12, 2015 9:17:03 GMT -5 contributor said:

mataeus, I don't think we're on the same page here. In fact, what I think we really need is a way to discuss the different approaches to morality that doesn't involve ratcheting up the rhetoric to stratospheric heights. The example that I picked was just one that came readily to mind. I lived in the most populous Muslim country in the world for a couple of years and probably 90% of my friends were Muslims and I lived in a Muslim's house for awhile. I have to say that for most of them Islam is a way to raise your kids so that they don't do drugs, get anyone pregnant before marriage and get a decent job because they're a decent person. And as for the Quran, it's true that it does send mixed messages and it's interesting the note the difference between the Meccan and Medinan passages, but it is far from a handbook on terror. In many ways, if it were, I think it would have far fewer followers than it does today.

I will agree though that it's good for religious people, myself included, to be honest about their texts and what they find in them. Platitudes like Islam is a religion of Peace or Christianity has been at war with X (reason, science, women, Muslims etc.) for thousands of years, don't really go very far towards explaining what are pretty much irreducibly complex entities. Even the word "religion" itself is next to meaningless the more you try to define it. So, well, maybe the best thing to do is actually go have a conversation with somebody and believe that there is actually a lot we have in common in our moral values. Focus on those for awhile and then maybe ask some questions about the things we can't quite get our heads around.

Out of 6346 verses in the Quoran, only 75 of them contain beliefs or instructions which would be considered by modern society as a good thing. The rest of it is questionable or downright horrid, and is it is written around the beliefs of a madman who has been inexplicably deified, it also contradicts itself very often (although no Mulsim would admit as such). For example:

"Whoever kills a human being, it is as if he had killed all mankind. Whoever saves the life of one, it is as if he had saved the life of all".

However, a later verse states that the enemies of Allah and Muhammad will be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off, or expelled. And after they die they will face "an awful doom." (5:32-33)

Apparently the word of Muhammad is truth, but which words? Both passages can't be correct... And that's only one example out of dozens - maybe hundreds.

Any person with half a brain could pull it to pieces in a day.

With the Bible, especially the Old Testament 'eye for an eye' stuff, Christians as a whole have come beyond it. Our modern society has moved on.

Muslims largely haven't moved on, and the laws of their holy book are still followed.

In the west, if you stone your wife, it's a crime - the Bible is irrelevant. Our society has moved beyond it's nastier teachings to grow and attempt to be better. In certain countries in the middle east, however, the archaic and barbaric rulings of their Prophet can be legally practiced. And as long as someone rules it's ok to beat your wife, there will be people who take advantage of that.

The Islamic societies need to outgrow Islam.

That's what I think