During one of the last classes, I brought up the end of Dark Knight when the Joker and Batman are discussing the morality of the people of Gotham City.
The first youtube clip shows the part of the movie where the inmate takes the mechanism to blow up the other ship and tosses it out the window, while the regular citizens on the other boat all want to blow the inmates up, but don't have the guts to do it.
The second clip is the discussion between Batman and the Joker. Batman talks about how the residents of Gotham were ready to believe in good, but the Joker knows that they'll break after they see the corruption of Harvey Dent. Harvey Dent, the White Light of Gotham, was symbolic for the idea that people need something to believe in - one of the primary reasons many of us believe religion exists.
First Part
Second Part
Does religion give people everything they need to believe in? If not, what else is there?
And what happens when religion fails to fulfill this goal?
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Monday, March 16, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Morality...continued
Its hard to say whether or not religion is good or bad for promoting good morals in society-because there are just so many variants. However i do agree with you that one could argue it both ways. My grandparents were extremely religious and my dad was until about when I was 15, my mom on the other hand was not at all and now recently has become religious. I thought i was kinda rebellious for not going to church when i was younger and thats mainly why i didn't go- yet deep down felt morally bad or like i was doing something wrong. Now though, I thank myself for staying away from the church and following my moms earlier views.
The swap in religious significance with my parents has caused me to realize that the church does good for some people and can promote the right morals ethics and ways of living your life but i think that those same ideals can be taught in much better ways. My mom travels all over the world helping those less fortunate than us living in our first world country-and having traveled with her extensively I feel I obtained morals if not equal but better than some of the people I know who have attended church. Appreciating what you have and caring for those around you I feel are the essential basics to be morally good. The church may do this for some people, but for me the baggage that comes with the church is just ludicrous. Its so unsettling knowing the immoral and corrupt things the church has done in the past to humanity.
Speaking about the media or movies and morality is interesting as well because the church used to use similar forms of manipulation that the media uses today. Whats great now though is that they are working together- I saw on the news that a Bishop in Brazil spoke out against an abortion a 9year old girl had because her father raped her and got her pregnant- Now... where the hell is the morality in that?
News info from CNN.com
The swap in religious significance with my parents has caused me to realize that the church does good for some people and can promote the right morals ethics and ways of living your life but i think that those same ideals can be taught in much better ways. My mom travels all over the world helping those less fortunate than us living in our first world country-and having traveled with her extensively I feel I obtained morals if not equal but better than some of the people I know who have attended church. Appreciating what you have and caring for those around you I feel are the essential basics to be morally good. The church may do this for some people, but for me the baggage that comes with the church is just ludicrous. Its so unsettling knowing the immoral and corrupt things the church has done in the past to humanity.
Speaking about the media or movies and morality is interesting as well because the church used to use similar forms of manipulation that the media uses today. Whats great now though is that they are working together- I saw on the news that a Bishop in Brazil spoke out against an abortion a 9year old girl had because her father raped her and got her pregnant- Now... where the hell is the morality in that?
News info from CNN.com
Morality and Religion
It is always interesting to think about the relationship between religion and moral beliefs. For the longest time I have always felt that religion must positively influence the moral decisions that persons make. This could be because my mother’s side of the family is Roman Catholic and I have always been influenced by many of their beliefs and moral behavior. Although when I really started to think about it I realized that even though they are pretty religious their moral values are really no different from my dad’s side of the family which isn’t religious at all. This got me thinking about the relationship between moral beliefs and religion to a greater extent. Thinking back I now wonder why I have always felt that religion and morals are so closely related. I wonder if it is all the movies about the good old days when families were “perfect”. These movies made you think that every family would go to church on Sunday, eat dinner together every night, and never say a bad word to anyone. Hollywood and even many politicians like to make us think that things were better in the 50’s when families were close, the woman stayed at home, and divorces were uncommon. Maybe in some ways things were better back then, but what about all the segregation and racial violence?
I think that religion and morals have very little, if any, relationship at all. I feel that moral values come from society and human kindness. The majority of people simply want to act in a good manner to others because it makes them feel good. There will always be a minority that doesn’t care about being nice to others but this has always been true no matter how prominent religion is at the time. Religious institutes do emphasize good moral behavior, and for this reason whenever religious persons act in a good way others think it is because of their religion. But maybe its just because they’re good people. What about those religious persons that act in a bad manner?
“The prevalence of widespread cheating at a predominantly conservative Christian university would seem to confirm the views of those who believe that religion, far from having a positive influence on personal moral conduct, is more likely to produce hypocrisy than honesty.” (Wolfe 153)
This really got me thinking about this relationship between religious institutions and morality. I can’t seem to come to a conclusion, only a few perspectives. In one way it seems that religion can only help moral beliefs and therefore is good in our society. In another way religion makes many hypocritical or even acts as a way for some to justify wrong doings. So is religion really beneficial to good moral behavior in our society?
Work Cited
Wolfe, Alan. The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith. New York: Free Press, 2003.
I think that religion and morals have very little, if any, relationship at all. I feel that moral values come from society and human kindness. The majority of people simply want to act in a good manner to others because it makes them feel good. There will always be a minority that doesn’t care about being nice to others but this has always been true no matter how prominent religion is at the time. Religious institutes do emphasize good moral behavior, and for this reason whenever religious persons act in a good way others think it is because of their religion. But maybe its just because they’re good people. What about those religious persons that act in a bad manner?
“The prevalence of widespread cheating at a predominantly conservative Christian university would seem to confirm the views of those who believe that religion, far from having a positive influence on personal moral conduct, is more likely to produce hypocrisy than honesty.” (Wolfe 153)
This really got me thinking about this relationship between religious institutions and morality. I can’t seem to come to a conclusion, only a few perspectives. In one way it seems that religion can only help moral beliefs and therefore is good in our society. In another way religion makes many hypocritical or even acts as a way for some to justify wrong doings. So is religion really beneficial to good moral behavior in our society?
Work Cited
Wolfe, Alan. The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith. New York: Free Press, 2003.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Dan Porter First Blog
Hello everyone,
I thought I'd start off my first post with a taste of what's to come. Before I launch into any controversial discussion I thought it necessary that everyone know a little of my background.
I was raised without religion although both of my parents were raised Christian. We had many traditions like Christmas and Easter that were religious in origin, but secular in their practice.
I have never prayed.
I went to elementary and middle school in an area that could be described as "white suburbia." about 80% of my class could be described as "white protestant" and many of them went to the same Church. During this period I experienced much prejudice at the hands of the faithful, although this may well be held to the fact that middle-school kids are notoriously vicious when it comes to difference. As a result, I was bitterly against religion for most of high school until I gained several close friends who were devoutly religious and convinced me that not all Christians were as narrow-minded as my schoolyard tormentors.
Towards the end of high school and beginning of college I began to look more critically at the idea of religion and its influences. I proclaimed myself agnostic with the following reasoning:
1) There is no sufficient proof or disproof for God.
2) There is no sufficient indication of God. (Something that has been proven to occur and is proven to be unexplainable by science or any other school of thought)
3) Since there are thousands of theological views and no proof to indicate that one or more is true (or even more accurate than another), I cannot reasonably think or act on any religious teaching or belief.
4) Barring the "sacred," I have since turned to a wholly secular morality. Essentially a more complex view of the golden rule, I try not to engage in actions that do harm to others (I may elaborate more on this form of morality later, as it may require several pages to fully explain).
Because the stability of society requires one to follow rules (even if one does not believe them to be "right"), I have not engaged in many of the activities I might in a void of Judeo-Christian law (on which our society is founded). Despite behaving in a way that is by most standards totally acceptable in our society, my beliefs in what is right and wrong would be considered radical by many.
To prepare the class for the types of commentary I might engage in later in the semester, I thought it necessary to explain that nothing is wrong in my morality unless there is a secular basis for it. That is to say that no religious or societal tradition has bearing on what I believe is right or wrong. This is not to say that I do not practice societal tradition, just that I don't believe that all of our laws and values have an objective moral basis (if such a thing even exists).
Here are some examples of my beliefs, however radical, within the realm of what might be considered "wrong" or "deviant" sexual actions (I chose the topic of sexuality since Geoff posted on Homosexual rights and because within the realm of psychology, sexual behavior is highly influenced by societal and religious influences):
1) Consensual sex is never wrong unless one party is not in the mental state to make a proper decision (by virtue of intoxication, age, developmental handicap, insanity, disease, or otherwise). As long as neither party was harmed (physically or mentally) in the encounter (or in the case of S&M, neither party was hurt physically more than they so desired), no form of sex, including homosexuality is wrong.
2) Polygamy is not morally wrong, provided that all parties are in consent. Some may argue with this on the basis that in many instances in history, this practice was only used when women were considered property or as a sign of status. This argument is fallacious in the same way that citing Russian communism to disprove Marxist ideals is false. While in the past polygamy has been practiced in ways that are degrading or socially harmful to women, there is no reason why it could not be practiced as a means of offering romantic or sexual freedom to those that would otherwise be "tied" to a single person. In my opinion it is possible to love two spouses equally the same way it is possible to love two parents or several children equally (although the type of love is different).
3) Along the same vein as the above, the concept of "cheating" on a spouse or lover is not inherently wrong unless doing so would conflict with a previously stated agreement not to have relations outside the couple. "Cheating" only does harm if there was a pre-existing expectation of a monogamous relationship; what we might have called "going steady" in grade school. However, in our society, this expectation is the rule, not the exception. Thus, in order for a person in a relationship to seek romance outside of the pair, they must first clear it with their partner. If both parties understand the ground rules, there is nothing inherently wrong with an open relationship.
I believe that the concepts outlined above are only considered wrong in our society because of its religious tradition. In other cultures, these ideas might not seem at all radical. For instance homosexuality was much more acceptable in ancient Rome, polygamy is accepted in many tribal cultures, and open yet still long-term relationships can still exist healthily (for example exploratory wife-swapping among close friends).
These things are accepted by some in our society and frowned upon by others. Some people who I have debated these things with over the years have made comments like "I don't know why, but its just wrong" by which I conclude that the Judeo-Christian tradition is so entrenched in our society that even the non-religious still uphold a similar value system.
I open the debate for people to discuss this:
Which, if any, parts of your morality are secular but may have sprung from the Judeo-Christian tradition?
Cheers,
-Dan
I thought I'd start off my first post with a taste of what's to come. Before I launch into any controversial discussion I thought it necessary that everyone know a little of my background.
I was raised without religion although both of my parents were raised Christian. We had many traditions like Christmas and Easter that were religious in origin, but secular in their practice.
I have never prayed.
I went to elementary and middle school in an area that could be described as "white suburbia." about 80% of my class could be described as "white protestant" and many of them went to the same Church. During this period I experienced much prejudice at the hands of the faithful, although this may well be held to the fact that middle-school kids are notoriously vicious when it comes to difference. As a result, I was bitterly against religion for most of high school until I gained several close friends who were devoutly religious and convinced me that not all Christians were as narrow-minded as my schoolyard tormentors.
Towards the end of high school and beginning of college I began to look more critically at the idea of religion and its influences. I proclaimed myself agnostic with the following reasoning:
1) There is no sufficient proof or disproof for God.
2) There is no sufficient indication of God. (Something that has been proven to occur and is proven to be unexplainable by science or any other school of thought)
3) Since there are thousands of theological views and no proof to indicate that one or more is true (or even more accurate than another), I cannot reasonably think or act on any religious teaching or belief.
4) Barring the "sacred," I have since turned to a wholly secular morality. Essentially a more complex view of the golden rule, I try not to engage in actions that do harm to others (I may elaborate more on this form of morality later, as it may require several pages to fully explain).
Because the stability of society requires one to follow rules (even if one does not believe them to be "right"), I have not engaged in many of the activities I might in a void of Judeo-Christian law (on which our society is founded). Despite behaving in a way that is by most standards totally acceptable in our society, my beliefs in what is right and wrong would be considered radical by many.
To prepare the class for the types of commentary I might engage in later in the semester, I thought it necessary to explain that nothing is wrong in my morality unless there is a secular basis for it. That is to say that no religious or societal tradition has bearing on what I believe is right or wrong. This is not to say that I do not practice societal tradition, just that I don't believe that all of our laws and values have an objective moral basis (if such a thing even exists).
Here are some examples of my beliefs, however radical, within the realm of what might be considered "wrong" or "deviant" sexual actions (I chose the topic of sexuality since Geoff posted on Homosexual rights and because within the realm of psychology, sexual behavior is highly influenced by societal and religious influences):
1) Consensual sex is never wrong unless one party is not in the mental state to make a proper decision (by virtue of intoxication, age, developmental handicap, insanity, disease, or otherwise). As long as neither party was harmed (physically or mentally) in the encounter (or in the case of S&M, neither party was hurt physically more than they so desired), no form of sex, including homosexuality is wrong.
2) Polygamy is not morally wrong, provided that all parties are in consent. Some may argue with this on the basis that in many instances in history, this practice was only used when women were considered property or as a sign of status. This argument is fallacious in the same way that citing Russian communism to disprove Marxist ideals is false. While in the past polygamy has been practiced in ways that are degrading or socially harmful to women, there is no reason why it could not be practiced as a means of offering romantic or sexual freedom to those that would otherwise be "tied" to a single person. In my opinion it is possible to love two spouses equally the same way it is possible to love two parents or several children equally (although the type of love is different).
3) Along the same vein as the above, the concept of "cheating" on a spouse or lover is not inherently wrong unless doing so would conflict with a previously stated agreement not to have relations outside the couple. "Cheating" only does harm if there was a pre-existing expectation of a monogamous relationship; what we might have called "going steady" in grade school. However, in our society, this expectation is the rule, not the exception. Thus, in order for a person in a relationship to seek romance outside of the pair, they must first clear it with their partner. If both parties understand the ground rules, there is nothing inherently wrong with an open relationship.
I believe that the concepts outlined above are only considered wrong in our society because of its religious tradition. In other cultures, these ideas might not seem at all radical. For instance homosexuality was much more acceptable in ancient Rome, polygamy is accepted in many tribal cultures, and open yet still long-term relationships can still exist healthily (for example exploratory wife-swapping among close friends).
These things are accepted by some in our society and frowned upon by others. Some people who I have debated these things with over the years have made comments like "I don't know why, but its just wrong" by which I conclude that the Judeo-Christian tradition is so entrenched in our society that even the non-religious still uphold a similar value system.
I open the debate for people to discuss this:
Which, if any, parts of your morality are secular but may have sprung from the Judeo-Christian tradition?
Cheers,
-Dan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)