|
|
|
|
|
When you hear the word moral corruption, you may think of the corruption of one's moral beliefs. Here, however, I am referring to something else - The corruption of one's moral sentiments by moral beliefs. This is a far more insidious process.
I see everywhere examples of how the innate goodness of people is corrupted by the religious and moral beliefs that are supposed to encourage it. In my own childhood I used to throw myself into rose bushes and hit my head on doors because of a religion that taught suffering as a virtue. This is an example of "corruption of goodness," because goodness includes being good to oneself.
Other examples are not so obvious to the untrained eye. I'll use another short and true story to explain.
A few years ago my wife and I were walking along a road near our house, and we came upon a woman laying in the mud, waving and yelling at the passing traffic. We weren't sure if she was injured or just mentally sick, but she did ask for us to call the police, and complained that nobody had stopped to help for a long time. Since she didn't seem to be bleeding or have any broken bones, we left her, and quickly went home to call the police.
Now, think about this for a moment. Hundreds of people of many moral beliefs drove by, including at least 200 Christians. They saw the woman laying there covered in mud on the side of the road, motioning to them to help her. All of them had heard the story of the good Samaritan, and all had moral beliefs that called for helping their fellow humans. Why did none of them stop?
The cynical among you will say that people just don't care about other people. I don't buy that, and I wonder what experiences people have had who do. (Or maybe the question is what experiences did they choose to focus on?) This case and others like it are more complicated than this more cynical view allows for. After all, people often do go to great lengths to help others.
In fact, people can even feel sympathy for a wounded bird or other wild animal and take it into their homes to feed it and help heal it. This was common in the middle-class neighborhood where I grew up, and the memories of these incidents made me wonder. If people more easily care about a wounded sparrow than another human laying on the side of the road, does this provide a clue to what is going on here?
First of all, the feeling of compassion that makes them pick up that sparrow is natural as far as I can tell. It is present in all normal people. But it seems it would extend to other humans as well, so what is going on? Putting myself in their place, with their thoughts and feeling in mind, I came upon an answer.
Their beliefs are getting in the way. More precisely, the unrealistic expectations created by their moral beliefs make them hesitate to help. It is easier to ignore the woman, or excuse themselves by saying, "She's just insane or drunk." (I should probably point out that this was in a rural area, outside a small town where homeless people and public drunks are rare.)
What are these unrealistic expectations? Consider for a moment the story Jesus tells in Luke, Chapter 21: "As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."
This and other moral teachings of the Christian faith make it clear that there is almost no limit to what you are expected to do for others if you want to do what is right. This sense of unbounded duty to others is essential to many religious teachings on morality. The idea is that the better man is the one who sacrifices the most, and it is absolutely contrary to our normal impulses towards self-preservation.
When a person who has been brought up on these beliefs sees a man asking for food, or sees a woman laying on the side of the road, he has a choice. He can stop to help, but he doesn't know how deeply he will get involved, and his moral beliefs tell him that he really should do everything he can to help. That's a potentially heavy burden if he doesn't feel like doing much. But then there is the other option: Avoid this potential moral dilemma by not getting involved, and making an excuse.
This is about the psychology of the situation. Suppose you see a man asking for food. You stop to give him the last half of your box of crackers. He tells you about how he was robbed of the money that was supposed to get him into his next apartment. He has no job and is living on the street. Could you give him some money, he asks, or give him a place to sleep for a few days. he begs you. You knew this was a possibility, and it is more than you want to do, but your moral beliefs say that you have an obligation to help.
You know that something like this is a possibility in any such situation, so in reality it is easier on your conscience to drive by and not even give him the crackers. You can pretend you don't see him, say that he is just looking for money for booze, or make any other excuse. Your beliefs have placed too heavy a burden on you, and so discourage you from helping.
On the other hand, a person who has no belief in ANY obligation to help others (that's me) doesn't face this dilemma. When I pick up a homeless hitchhiker (I often do) and help him with a little food, I can leave it at that without guilt. If he asks for a place to sleep, and I don't want to help, I can simply say no, and wish him the best. I don't have a "duty" to do more than I want to do. This makes it very easy to help others as the opportunity arises, because I can feel good helping only as much as I am prepared to help.
This is the opposite of the "give until it hurts" moral theory. I say that if it hurts, you are giving too much. There may come a time when you have more to give, or there may come a time when your own personal development makes giving easier. In the meantime, with a morality based on self interest, you have no heavy burden and no guilt. You help to the extent that feels right for you, and leave it at that.
| Much of this is speculative, but I do believe in a "natural morality" which is experienced as "conscience," and which is universal in "normal" humans. However, the particular ways we describe these things may evolve. In other words, I may change my mind. |
Religious and moral systems don't make people more loving or generous. People's natural loving feelings and generosity may make these moral beliefs seem good, but then the beliefs create a standard that people can't possibly live up to. This makes believers into hypocrites, a self image they can only hide from by avoiding those situations which point it out.
This process is moral corruption. A man writes a check for a charity because it's easy. But at the same time he avoids any real encounters where his moral beliefs and guilt may suck him in deeper than he wants to go, because he either goes or his hypocrisy is exposed.
The above explanation shows how of all the altruistic moral philosophies can actually corrupt ones normal moral development and expression. But there are also other specific moral beliefs that are just plain primitive and hateful, which also corrupt moral thinking as well. For example, the Old Testament clearly calls for death to gays and "witches," and forbids crippled persons from entering church.
Fortunately, most people don't buy into all that their religions or "moralities" promote. Despite claiming that the their holy books are the "word of God," they don't actually follow the horrible examples and ideas in those books. But the danger is always there, especially with younger people who, in their quest to be consistent believers and not hypocrites, easily have their basic goodness corrupted by various religious beliefs and teachings.
How do we avoid this moral corruption by "morality" itself? With a better view of morality, and an open mind that allows beliefs to change and evolve as we experience life and grow. With an enlightened morality of self interest.
To a mature and self-interested person, the existence of gay or crippled persons is not a threat. Furthermore, for all the teachings about being non-judgmental, the Christian faith produces a lot of very judgmental people, as does almost every religious-based moral system. A morality of self interest is most concerned with the practical aspects of finding the best ways to interact with others, with little need for condemning them.
The common view that it is primarily self-interest which leads to moral corruption shows the shallowness of people's thinking about the self. It also shows an ignorance of the corrupting influence of their own religions and beliefs.