|
It's interesting that fundamentalist Christians unanimously believe that there is something in humans which makes us somehow better than other animals. Obviously other religions hold this belief as well, but I'm more frequently exposed to the fundamentalist world view of Babtists than that of any other denomination or religion, so I know more about it. The irony in this belief of our superiority is the fact that most organized religions only work at all by treating most people as if they are all fairly stupid animals. Sure, heaven and hell and all the crap surrounding these two notions are a bit more complex than the carrot and stick used with the average jackass, but they accomplish the same thing: Do what you're supposed to and you'll get a reward, don't and you'll be punnished. These people are too simple-minded to realize that there is still a right and wrong without expecting a reward or punnishment. Luckily, someone much smarter than most people reslized thousands of years ago that the main difference between most of us and animals is that we believe there is a difference... that and the fact that we're embarassed to have no natural hair covering, so we wear hair and feather substitutes to cover up our skin. Whoever these first spiritual leaders were, they knew that only a very few people can be trusted to know right from wrong intuitively. The rest require a more concrete reason for acting morally. When this type of religion is looked at in light of Kohlberg's theories on moral development, it can be seen that most of it falls into what he called the preconventional perspective. Interestingly, most of the followers of these belief systems believe they're morally superior to others, but that's just because their reward and punnishment aren't in this lifetime. Supposedly, the preconventional perspective is the one held by children and preteens. First, very young children behave based on the concrete results of that action: reward or punnishment. This is very much like the stories in the Old Testament, where God punnished those who acted wrongly. Later in childhood, morality is based on satisfying needs, especially those of the individual child. During adolescence, it is possible (though studies have shown it to be far from universal) to progress into the conventional level of moral perspective. Here, "right" action is that which pleases/helps others or is approved by them. Later on, some people learn to consider more abstract virtues such as being a good citizen and maintaining "social order." While less selfish than the preconventional level, conventional morality is still based largely on a more generalized and expanded form of selfishness, one strongly connected with conformity and the need for social approval. In the postconventional level, one to which a definite minority of people actually progress, more "advanced" thinking leads to concern for more abstract ideas, regardless of existing social rules and their enforcers (police and churches). In this level, one can see the conflicts between "moral" and "legal" which can cause personal trouble. This fact, though they may not know it, is probably the result of the fact that "legality" is based on rigid rules which are often poorly adapted to an ever-changing Reality. Thus "situational ethics," a term often looked down upon, are the only truly moral ethics that exist. Luckily for humanity as a whole, religion is generally structured in such a way as to encourage at least some level of compassion towards others by threatening punnishment. Many people will act altruistically simply because they don't want to feel guilty or lonely for their actions, or they don't want to be punnished after death. Therefore, it is necessary for these religions to play off this selfishness to encourage the right type of behavior in people not enlightened enough to see what is right. |
|
