I guess a question that lingers within me is whether it would be desirable, if it were possible, to base my actions on what I would deem to be the greatest good for the greatest number. Again and again, there seems to me to be some key features that religiously based ethics and utilitarianism share.
If it were possible to determine what the greatest good for the greatest number would be, it seems that, by acting upon bringing that about, I would estrange myself from the ties I have with my loved ones; and for some reason, this estrangement reminds me of how I felt in 1986 when I thought that the god that I had conceived of at that time, was calling upon me to do ‘his’ will.
I associated, in 1986 ‘doing God’s will’ with being sort of stripped of all of the comforts of my ties to family members, friends, and people in general. I recall that, in 1986, I had the idea that ‘doing God’s will’ would place me into conflict with the majority of other human beings. It seems that I had internalized the idea found in some Christian writings regarding one’s ‘forsaking of the world’ or ‘being forsaken by the world’ in order to experience ‘communion with God.’
So, I think, generally, that my ties to other human beings via my ties to my loved ones such as family members, friends, and romantic partners, involve me both consciously and ‘subconsciously’ having greater concern for the welfare of my loved ones than I have for the welfare of strangers—-all else being equal. [[[12-25-12: But what if thru an evolution of human consciousness people in general were more concerned about those who are aren’t friends or family or fellow nearby community members? If nearly everyone is living in this less subjective way, we and our friends and family would benefit.]]]]
Generally, it seems that a Utilitarian or a sort of god’s-eye-view approach to morality contravenes an essential feature to being human: our ties to various other human and non-human sentient beings, which are an extension of each person’s individual perspective, rather than a mysteriously acquired knowledge of the absolute good.
So, I think that morality is relativistic. It may be the case that this process of ranking one’s concerns for others varies from individual to individual; and that some individuals may have a perspective such that he or she, in at least some circumstances, gives a higher priority to the welfare of people with whom he or she is not ‘emotionally close’ than he or she gives to the welfare of those with whom he or she is or has been ‘emotionally close.’
Perhaps through theology some human beings have attempted to create moral ideals on the basis of what human beings are not: all-knowing, and concerned, equally, with the welfare of every human or every sentient being, depending on the particular religion. Some may think that theology involves useful ideals because striving for those goals results in great achievements though we fall short in our attempts to meet those goals.
Some also may think that the god he or she worships created for humankind unattainable goals in order to remind us that we are incomplete without that god. I think that perhaps human beings would be better off if we were to base our ideals upon our knowledge of what human beings are, instead of basing our ideals upon that which human beings are not. Also, I think that our ideals ought to be attainable. I don’t believe that part of the usefulness of our ideals comes from our being humbled as the result of our inevitable failure to meet them.
It seems to me that via theologically based ethics, many human beings attempt to base their lives on instructions from sacred texts which may contradict other instructions from the same texts; or they may attempt to make sense of how they apply to their lives various biblical instructions in a literal sense while consciously ignoring other instructions or interpreting some other instructions figuratively.
Some may also explain their inability to make sense of biblical instructions in their entirety as being yet another lesson in humility from their god or part of the mystery of their faith. Perhaps, human beings can achieve greater congruity between what we claim to believe and how we live our lives if create our value systems without claiming that any aspect of our values are immutable or that any of the prominent people involved in creating such values are infallible or somehow otherwise in touch with a source of omniscience.
Some have responded to criticisms of theology by saying that it is human arrogance to think that humankind has all the answers and can figure everything out. I am not suggesting that human beings can know everything and create a heaven on earth so to speak, or a perfect state of affairs.
Also, I am not claiming that the human experience is such that we don’t encounter reminders of the limitations of our mental and physical faculties. Such reminders may involve our experience of tragic frustration at seeming to be unable to find the solution or we may be aware of our human limitations with a sense of exuberant and joyful awe, in terms of all that we know exists and in terms of what may exist beyond our awareness for the time being or perhaps beyond human awareness forever.
What I am saying is that this sense of mystery or awe ought to come about as a part of human beings having explored all the questions we can think of to the full capacity of our mental abilities. I deem that our human desire to be happy and our ‘subconscious drive’ to do that which we deem will be good for us propels this exploration process.
A genuine sense of awe is one in which we have a keen sense of our limitations as a result of having exerted ourselves mentally to our limits. I don’t think it is genuine awe or a genuine sense of mystery, if we are in that state as a result of deliberately refraining from exerting our mental abilities so as not to question our beliefs, which is something that seems to happen a lot with religion
Also, regarding the claim that a lack of religious faith results from human arrogance, perhaps the belief that the existence of human beings and other beings are part of a divine plan is arrogant.
On a personal level, perhaps it is arrogant to think that there has to be some explanation to my own existence other than the happenstance of one particular sperm, amongst may thousands, fertilizing one particular egg.
I have heard some people state that the complexity of, for example, the functioning of the human brain, is such that there must be some sort of sentient, intelligent super-being designer who made it all possible. There may be. I am not claiming that there is or that there is not such a designer.
I am in awe of the phenomena of which I am at least somewhat aware. I think that human beings can understand parts of such phenomena, but that human beings are not capable of understanding the entirety.
The wonders all around me neither confirm nor disproves the existence of a god or gods. Contemplating such wonders, I am in awe and aware of my mental limitations. Perhaps agnosticism is a matter of being honest with myself.
I turn now to what may be part of the problem with religion. That no human being or other non-divine sentient being possesses all-knowing awareness goes without saying. But if I were to worship a god that I regarded as all-knowing, I would perhaps think that I could be in touch with, or more in touch with than some other people, knowing what to do to bring about the most good, in this sort of god’s eye view, of everything that can happen, if I somehow have what I deem to be communion with this god.
This is where the downfall of such a theological ethical system may lie. If I think that the god I worship is acting in my life and that from my communion with this god I am gaining knowledge, then I may no longer bear in mind that even if I base my beliefs and action on my most moving inspirational experiences that I may have as I worship my god, I may still be mistaken.
If I were religious, I venture that I would still be likely to concede that I am fallible by virtue of being human, but perhaps, concerning a particularly moving experience I deem to be inspired by the god I worship, I may not leave open the possibility that I may be mistaken about the knowledge I seem to derive from such inspiration. If I were religious, I may think that to do so would be to question and lack faith in my god.
If I am religious, I may deem as a grave betrayal of my faith in the god I worship any doubt I may have about the correctness of the knowledge I deem that I have derived from those experiences which would seem to me to be divinely inspired.
I am not sure about this, though, because it seems possible that a person may be able to worship her or his god(s) in a manner such that he or she persists in her or his attempt to bear in mind her or his own limitations as a human being, all the while believing in her god’s omniscience. Yet, how could someone believe in her or his god’s omniscience if he or she accounts for her or his fallibility applying also to her or his faith ?
Also, regarding my perspective in which I deem that my own mental functioning resulting from biochemical processes of my brain gave rise to what I formerly thought were spiritual experiences of communion with the god I worshiped, I want to say that I have been wondering whether my current agnostic perspective and that of someone who is religious are the same, essentially.
Our differences in perspective may be a matter of semantics.
Related to my wondering about how my perspective may differ from or resemble the perspectives of people who regard themselves as spiritual or religious, is my wondering about what it is exactly about religion as I know it, that I find I cannot accept.
One thought that comes to mind regards the belief that directives in writings that the faithful regard as sacred are to be followed without question.
Using Christianity as an example, a related thought is that I think there is a problem with believing that a person ought to base her or his conduct in accordance with every statement that Christ is attributed by the authors of the New Testament to have said.
This issue regarding adhering to directives that authors of the New Testament attribute to Christ is a specific aspect of what I deem to be wrong with theologically based morality in general.
I think one of the problems with theologically based morality is that adherents to a religion genuinely believe or at least claim that the ideas of some of the people involved in shaping that religion are not to be questioned, given that such key figures of their religion were inspired by God.
But, in addition to not being willing to question the authority of certain figures key to that religion, a person has to somehow reconcile the fact that he or she does not intend to follow every directive of the writings deemed to be the word of God.
This is not a matter of straying because of human weakness, but rather a matter of deliberate deviation from certain directives while embracing those directives which he or she is able to live up to. For example, I have never met a person who claims to be a follower of Christ who seeks to give everything he or she owns away to poor people.
The thought that I have is that theologically based morality constrains a person’s ability to use her or his own judgment to deal with the question of how he or she will live.
It seems I once thought that I could ‘grow ethically’ via praying to God. Perhaps the best manner for my achievement of ‘ethical growth’- not necessarily the best manner for others– is for me to examine my values via ‘introspection’ and collaboration with others, and to apply my values through the process of continuing to form companionship and community, based on working with others to make the world a better place.
Leave a Reply