Imagine, there's no heaven

irishrosem · Doctorate Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 536 Gender:

Good call, Niall. I think you’re right; we probably are working from two different concepts, which would explain the confusion in our discussion. So I’m going to work on some definitions. I started out in this discussion keeping “ultimate morality” in quotes and often preceded it by religious-inspired. Really I should have used the term religious-dictated. But that was cumbersome and I thought I had made it clear what I was speaking of, so I cut out the religious-inspired and just started talking about ultimate morality vs. personal morality. My true criticism lies in dictated morality, largely religious-dictated morality, which is why my argument often focused on religiously observant people who do not explore their own moral choices. The “ultimate morality” I speak of is morality dictated by a religious institution as ultimately right or wrong. This type of morality breeds ignorance and unadulterated compliance, and is dangerous.

Now you state that those who do not allow their morality to be dictated to them by religious institutions can still develop an “ultimate morality.” I don’t disagree. I can’t see any situation where there is gray in rape. My only caveat is I think those who explore their own morality would seriously limit the instances which they consider to be “ultimately” wrong compared to those who allow their morality to be dictated to them. Institutionalized morality must have clear, decisive proclamations, and this does not allow the individual to explore the gray in these many different issues. So, for instance, the Catholic Church believes capital punishment is wrong in every instance. I too believe capital punishment is wrong, but I am willing to explore individual cases to see if that personal moral choice applies in every circumstance.

And this is what I have been discussing all along. That religious-dictated morality castrates the individual’s personal moral exploration, substituting institutionalized or religiously-dictated morality for what should be personally constructed morality. A question of morality should only be right and wrong to an individual because she feels/thinks/has determined it is right or wrong for her. (Note moral is different than legal.) Religious-dictated morality, specifically the Catholic Church, does not allow the individual, if she wishes to be a “good Catholic,” to make those decisions for herself. (I am not limiting this criticism to the Catholic Church, but that is where most of my personal experience comes from, as does yours—I think. Thus, I thought it would behoove us, in light of the aforementioned confusing generalizations, to narrow the scope of our discussion.) As a result, the Catholic Church creates sheeple—dictating morality to the masses, morality that is understood to be ultimately right or wrong.

As for AA, I had referenced it to help illustrate a point. I don’t think this is the proper thread to discuss the toxicity of AA, though I’d be happy to do so elsewhere, if you wish. As for citations, personally, the most damning evidence against AA is in their own “Big Book,” which can be downloaded off their site. But note, as Frank addressed, according to all available stats (which are minimal), AA has no better success rates than spontaneous cures.

One final note, Niall, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. A few of us are doing an informal reading of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. It is a shorter novel and, I think, will be a quick read. Discussion starts April 7 if you’re interested.


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT