Another interesting article from Scoutmaster's Blog on FB; Belief structures

[Stosh]

When I was a kid 50+ years ago, I was appalled when I read about the "sophisticated and culturally advanced" the Romans were, yet if they didn't like their infant child for some reason it was taken out into the woods to die of exposure.

 

But then again it was a revulsion to read about how the Russian Communist would take children from their parents and put them in day care all day long so the parents would work.

 

Oh, how one pines for the innocence of youth.

 

Just because a social norm changes, doesn't mean it's an automatic change in social morality.  It takes a while for society to justify itself into convincing the masses it's okay to do.  This type of mass social manipulation has been going on since the dawn of time.

[Peregrinator]

I am a science guy. I'd love to see the everyone apply to religion the kind of critical examination that we apply to those scientific hypotheses.

Why do you think they haven't?

[DuctTape]

Some might argue that religious leaders are some of the most adept at mass social manipulation. To decree the order came from god makes it unquestionable even though the decree is really just the religious leader's self directed moral code based on their personal (or groups) interpretation and implementation. Religious based moral codes are no less succeptible to mans own personal justification, interpretation etc. I might argue that invoking god into the moral code allows us to take the easy way out in determining the real ethical and moral choice given the complexity of the situation. Even absolutists use word choices which really have situational or subjective determiners within them. The recent discussion regarding the word kill vs murder is case in point. Those that argue the word should say murder are really just saying killing that is immoral. It is a circular argument which begs the question how does one determine when killing someone is a violation of the moral code. The answer requires a specific situation and the details to determine, thus it is not an absolute, but situation specific.

[NJCubScouter]

but the world is not based on self-justification, but on corporate or community based justifications also known as moral codes.  Whether these codes are divinely inspired or are just best practice results of trial and error, they seem to work in providing a certain amount of protection from other self-serving, self-justifying individuals.  It is that common protection that theoretically will hold community together.

Sounds accurate. And if the community's moral code can be "best practice results of trial and error", then for this purpose (moral codes) a deity is not necessarily required. Right?

[qwazse]

Sounds accurate. And if the community's moral code can be "best practice results of trial and error", then for this purpose (moral codes) a deity is not necessarily required. Right?

Well, that depends on if you think all the chances to run those trials is a grant from the Beneficent or a result of some natural gyre of matter heeding no particular command.

[Eagledad]

Sounds accurate. And if the community's moral code can be "best practice results of trial and error", then for this purpose (moral codes) a deity is not necessarily required. Right?

When you look through history NJ where the poor were treated unfairly, you will find an abuse in power and interpretation of the moral code. You have heard me say many times that when their is no single source of moral code, moral code because what the guy with the biggest stick says it is. 

 

Stosh is exactly right, moral code is supposed to be used by the community to protect the weak and innocent. That is the motivation behind not having gay role models. Now it is true the pendulum can swing too far in both directions, but how do you know without a non-changing moral source. Rationally I can explain why religion fails when it does because I have a guideline or doctrine. But those without such a guideline tend to rely on emotions until experience changes their opinion. And even then it is still and emotional choice. A deity, as you say is neither emotional or changing and is required to anchor morality.

 

Barry

 

Barry

Edited September 18, 2015 by Eagledad

[Stosh]

Sounds accurate. And if the community's moral code can be "best practice results of trial and error", then for this purpose (moral codes) a deity is not necessarily required. Right?

 

Honor among thieves is a moral code based on trial and error.  I'm thinking that whenever self-justification gets involved there's going to be problems.  Like Barry says, there has to be a moral anchor that is outside of one's self-concern arena to give a true definition of moral codes.  MY moral code has it's roots in a foundation.  It might not be picture perfect because of my self-directed concerns and self-justifications I may add on to it, but if the basic core doesn't change, my re-definitions are pretty much meaningless over time.  Social norms may prevail in the short run as well,  Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it morally correct.  

 

So where's the moral code when people say it's okay for starving people to steal bread for their family and then lock them up when they do it.  Okay, then it's okay for starving people to stead bread for their family when they can get away with it.

 

Self justification is a great deception tool when used against any morality codes out there, especially those which originate from a deity.

 

So to answer the question, in the realm of self justification, yes.  In the realm of external moral codes, no.

[CalicoPenn]

Sorry - I don't buy the whole "The Hebrew words are nuanced" argument to accept the word murder as a proper translation of either an Old Hebrew word or an Old Aramaic word and I don't buy it because back when they were written, they weren't nuanced - they knew exactly what they were saying and what those words meant, and used those words deliberately.  Those "nuances" are modern intepretations of what some scholars think the word might have meant - it's mental gymnastics (not really the word I want to use but this is a Scouting forum and the "M" word isn't appropriate) to say the word for kill didn't really mean kill - it meant kill in this kind of fashion and not some other kind of fashion.  If they meant murder, they would have created a word in their language that meant murder.

[Stosh]

I am not a Hebrew scholar but I have many friends who are.  I have been told that the exact translation of this commandment is "Thou shall not be a murderer."  Hopefully someone who can read Hebrew and has a Torah handy can validate that.

[cyclops]

Why do you think they haven't?

Because I haven't yet seen a religious-based hypothesis that can be tested in an experiment. Perhaps you know of some and if so I'd like to learn more.

 

Well, that depends on if you think all the chances to run those trials is a grant from the Beneficent or a result of some natural gyre of matter heeding no particular command.

Thermodynamic laws are very particular and place strong limits on what matter and energy can do.

 

Mankind has always had free-will and for that reason makes choices according to criteria either he/she sets up or those set up by others.  

and then, "the world is not based on self-justification, but on corporate or community based justifications also known as moral codes." 

See if you can use your free will to defy gravity. If successful I'd kind of like a flying carpet or two. But I am particularly surprised to read that you endorse corporations as a source of morality. Astonished, actually.

 

When I was a kid 50+ years ago, I was appalled when I read about the "sophisticated and culturally advanced" the Romans were, yet if they didn't like their infant child for some reason it was taken out into the woods to die of exposure.

Yes, and today we merely turn our back on families living in hovels under bridges and such as they die quiet anonymous deaths. In a nearby city, it was shown that the entire population of homeless persons could be completely taken off the streets if each church in the community only sponsored a single homeless person. And since that time, there has not been a single such sponsorship. But the churches are looking mighty pretty these days.

 

 

Honor among thieves is a moral code based on trial and error.

There is no such honor. It is a myth. Thieves know better than anyone who not to trust....themselves. And for 'self-justification', that could be just as easily applied as your own basis for decisions. All anyone else will ever see is the outcome of your decision and the only thing any of us have to go by more than that is your 'word' regarding your motivations. You could be acting in the true moral manner you claim or you could be acting on the basis of self-justification. No one else can ever know for sure which it is nor would such knowledge change that outcome. It is what it is.

Edited September 18, 2015 by cyclops

[SSScout]

Far too many things to refer to , to answer assertions directly. Hence, some general quotes/comments.

 

"One man's miracle is another man's coincidence" - - I believe because of my study and because of my personal miracles (another time).

 

" By their fruits shall you know them". If a person acts in a moral manner, and I so believe it of him/her, it is because they are acting in accordance with what I think is moral and correct. Hence, the ISIS terrorist is "moral" to some, but not to me.

 

"Character is what one does when one thinks no one else is looking". Ah, but the religious person should (does?) think someone/something is looking. ALL the time. Does that matter? Are all professing Christians/Jews/Muslims/Hindus/Ba'hai's true to their defined faith's teachings and their ostensible founder's example? What a world we might have if they were!

 

" It is a sad Reflection, that many Men hardly have any Religion at all; and most Men have none of their own: For that which is the Religion of their Education, and not of their Judgment, is the Religion of Another, and not Theirs." So the idea that one can be TAUGHT a faith is hard to prove. The young Scout will learn his parents faith, even if the parents aren't aware they are teaching it. Later, the Scout may decide , for himself, what he believes and where that belief comes from.

 

 

"On my honor..." " A Scout is..." If we can convince the young Scout of the efficacy and appropriateness of those promises, it matters not (to me, at least, and I'm a Scout Chaplain) if he assigns the origin of those words to an omnipotent deity or his own reasoning, the deed has been done, his life is changed and the world is a little better for it.

Edited September 19, 2015 by SSScout

[MattR]

Hopefully someone who can read Hebrew and has a Torah handy can validate that.

Try this. I'm not the scholar, I just looked it up and condensed it.

 

The 3 letter root of the verb used in the 6th commandment is R-Tz-Ch (you can't pronounce it without the vowels). It is used in numerous places throughout the Bible. In Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 5 & 19, and Joshua 20 & 21, it refers to accidental deaths but the word accidental is explicitly put in the text. In Deuteronomy 22, Judges 20, 1 Kings 21, 2 Kings 6, Isaiah 1, Jeremiah 7, Ezekiel 21, Hosea 4 & 6, Psalms 42, 62, and 94,  Proverbs 22, and Job 24 there is no modifier and the deaths are willful and premeditated. There are a few other words used in other places that describe killing someone. I didn't get into it deep enough but the meanings of these words are vague when it comes to accidental or willful. So, murder it is and not kill. I hope that helps.

 

@@cyclops, you say that the churches have not removed any homeless from the streets in your town. That sucks. My temple along with a number of churches in our town have done just that. We take turns providing a place to sleep, food to eat, and time to talk. We haven't removed all the homeless but we do what we can and focus on homeless families.

 

I don't know of anyone that has the resources to do this on their own. It takes a community that is intent on doing it. Back to my comment about motivation, where does the motivation come from for any community to attempt this? For me, it's Torah. I don't care where anyone else gets it. Sit on a rock and watch the sun rise, that's fine. I'd just like to see more people get it. It's just very impressive to me that some 3000 years ago someone said "to leave the unreaped corner of the field or orchard for the poor." This is about the time the bronze age has replaced stone tools with metal in Egypt.

[Stosh]

And why do you think Ruth was in Boaz's field after losing her hustand?

[cyclops]

MattR, that was back in early summer. Since that time, the local government did two things, they completely removed all of the 'tent cities' under bridges and at the same time placed the homeless in shelters here and there. It is possible that people who go to those churches provide donations to those shelters and I have no idea whether or not, in the months since that time, any of the churches 'adopted' any homeless themselves. The ones near me didn't. The nearest temple is about an hour away so I'm not sure about how they responded. I do know that Rabbi and I know him to be a really decent guy who likely did try to do something to help. I just don't get to hear from him all that often.

 

In addition, Ruth also might have been trying to catch Boaz's eye, so-to-speak. All we know is that a written account reports that she did something. We can never truly know her motives.

[Stosh]

First of all, Ruth was widowed at a young age.  She was not in her native country and without a husband had no way of earning a living.  Boaz was a wealthy man and was related to Ruth's deceased husband.  He left instructions to leave part of his field and whatever was scattered about after harvest not to be cleaned up but left for the widows, the poor and the orphans.  That is why Ruth was in the field that day.  It is very clearly spelled out in the story.  We definitely know the motive.  She was homeless, hungry and needed the grain.

 

Our local Methodist church opened a tent city in it's back yard this summer for the homeless in our area.  At least they were keeping it neat and clean rather than the unfortunate circumstances of other tent cities around the country.  The neighbors complained and the city came in and are in the process of trying to shut the church's ministry to the poor down.

 

So whose moral code are we going to follow in this circumstance?  The government's codified laws, the self-justification moral code of the neighbors, or the ministry of a religious organization?  And then tell me which moral code do you wish to support and which of those codes provides the closest to the Scout Oath and Laws?  Then we can get into a discussion as to the sources of those codes.