View Single Post
Old 07-23-2010, 10:05 PM   #32
DMcCunney
New York Editor
DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DMcCunney's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,384
Karma: 16540415
Join Date: Aug 2007
Device: PalmTX, Pocket eDGe, Alcatel Fierce 4, RCA Viking Pro 10, Nexus 7
I had a friend years ago who was a Hasidic Jew. He was quite sure the laws that governed his people had been carved on stone tables by the finger of G-d, and brought down off a mountain by Moses. (He did have problems with some of what his religious teachers told him, like when G-d parted the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape from the pursuing forces of the Eqyptian Pharoah, not only had the Red Sea parted - so had every other body of water on the planet, down to drops of dew on leaves. "I think they're just...legends..." he said with a wry look.)

I told him it was possible - I wasn't there, didn't see it with my own eyes, and couldn't categorically deny it - but it wasn't necessary.

Whenever human beings live together in groups, there must be agreement on what constitutes acceptable behavior, for the survival and efficient functioning of the group. Whether you assume it comes from the commandments of a God, or the feelings of people, the agreement will exist or the group will not survive and prosper. We call the agreement "morality". We call the written down version "law". All societies will have it.

There are two critical points to bear in mind. First, all societies don't have the same agreements. Some things are common, like a prohibition against murder (though how murder is defined may differ). Other things are more culturally based, like taboos on what you may eat or how you may dress. Second, the agreement is intended to preserve and strengthen the group. The benefit to and effect upon the individual of such agreement is secondary.

Some aspects of morality thought to be commanded by God may have more prosaic causes. One example is the Jewish and Muslim prohibition against eating pork. Jews and Arabs are both Semitic peoples, considering themselves descended from Abraham. They originated in a semi-arid area where the scarce resource was water. Pigs have a lot of short term advantages. They are relatively easy to raise, can eat almost anything, and "you can use every part of the pig but the squeal". Long term, in a semi-arid area, they're a disaster. They simply need too much water. How do you prevent people from doing things with attractive short term benefits that have bad long term consequences that aren't obvious or immediately visible? "Because God said not to!" is one fairly powerful method.

Moral behavior may not be hard wired, but it becomes innate. We soak up our ideas of what is moral through the skin, starting at a pre-verbal age, simply by watching those around us and doing as they do. "I wouldn't do that! It's wrong!" is a gut level reaction, not a reasoned response. (And an awful lot of folks will react angrily to attempts to make it reasoned, by asking "Okay,I understand you feel that way, but why is it wrong?" Such feelings have become part of their sense of self, defining who they are, and questions of beliefs can be interpreted as attacks on those who hold them.)

Likewise, all societies have constraints on behavior, but the question is whether they are internal or external.

Consider the institution of the Duenna in Latin America. The Duenna was an older married female who was companion to and chaperon for an unmarried woman or women. Latin American culture up till about 50 years ago taught a young man that he was hotblooded and passionate, and left alone with an attractive young woman would be unable to control himself and would have his way with her. Women were taught that they were weak and feminine and passive, and would of course be unable to resist the attentions of the man. The culture got around the obvious problems by assuring that young women weren't left alone with men. They were always accompanied by a chaperon.

Our culture assumes a man can control himself and behave appropriately when left alone with a woman. The controls are internal. Latin American culture assumed he couldn't control himself, and external constraints were required. (The Latinos got it from the Spaniards who first colonized the continent. They probably got it from the Moorish Arabs who conquered and ruled a good bit of the Iberian peninsula until they were defeated by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours. The Muslim woman's burqa stems from the same underlying assumption: a man can't control himself, and must be given no provocation. Cover yourself from head to toe.)

Speaking personally, if I knew the world was coming to an end in a week, I'd be trying to contact and spend time with loved ones, in person if possible or via technology if not, simply to say goodbye, and tell them I loved them and was glad they were a part of my life.
______
Dennis
DMcCunney is offline   Reply With Quote