I welcome the opportunity to address your congregation again. This time on a subject of "Behavior." Your illustrious member, Stan Kaufman, has a knack for choosing unusual topics and I have a weakness for taking up the cudgels!
I assume that the real purpose of this challenge is to determine how maverick members of the public justify their every day behavior. What are the guideposts for those without a belief in a deity or any system of moral certitude? What do Humanists use for a sail, a rudder or a anchor to guide them through the uncharted seas of every day life? What, if anything, do they base their moral values on?
Let us begin, as usual, with definitions. What does the word, "Behave" really mean? Funk and Wagnalls says "To conduct oneself, esp. in a proper or suitable manner." So, logically, there must be such things as"Good" and "Bad" behavior. What, we might ask, constitutes the difference between "Good and "Bad" behavior?
That would depend on who the judges are. In one of Bertrand Russell’s works he described the difficulties encountered when a man shoots his Mother-in-law between the eyes at a distance of 200 yards. He could be referred to as a "good" shot, although not necessarily doing a "good" thing!
What motivates so-called "Good" behavior? Many things Fear of punishment, fear of obloquy [that is the disgrace of having people speak badly about you]. The wish for compliance and personal safety. Personal reward and/or recognition. Privilege. All those things and more make for compliance to social customs and so-called good behavior.
Bad behavior, on the other hand, also has its benefits and adherents. For example you can sometimes get large rewards without having to do any tedious work at all! Dope peddling, for example. Or, when you decide to rob a bank instead of working in one, you can make a lot of money very quickly, but there are risks involved. Of course, it is possible that there may be some kind of thrill in just being an outlaw. Seeing yourself as a Robin Hood, or a Mad Bomber might be exciting. Just imagine how you would feel if you saw yourself as a present day Jesse James; or a Scarlet Pimpernel or one of the Mafia? I suppose it could be said that it might be exhilarating to imagine yourself as a hero or heroine or a master criminal.
There was a time when young ladies were taught to be virtuous. They were admonished that "Virtue is its own reward." Maybe it is. A cynical friend of mine likes to say that the same argument can be made for adultery being its own reward!
In the final analysis people believe what they have been told to believe. We are all conditioned, more or less. Some like to maintain that it is impossible to be moral without the belief in supernatural objects, or faith in gods and goddesses. Others have faith in Spirits and Saints and special, so-called divinely inspired books. Some people even believe [in the year 2001] that there is such a thing as Angelic intervention! There are others who seriously claim that goodness and honesty can be obtained from medals which represent heroic stories of martyrdom,. Some of these stories allegedly stem from history, but most of them are completely mythological
Some people believe they have found short cuts to good behavior and infallible slogans to act as guideposts for the morally challenged. Situational Ethics, they claim, are not nearly good enough. What we all need are solid, dependable sacred principles which "Never let you down!" Among these are the Ten Commands and the so-called "Golden Rule." These are interesting "rules of order" which we will discuss. They may or may not be of value. Both of them reflect the societies from which they originated.
The 10 Commands represent a tribal "Do and Do not" list which were typical in all primitive societies. Most of them were borrowed from the much earlier sets of rules. These included the famous "Code of Hammurabi" or the even older ones from the Sumerian King of "Ur-Nammu." Both of these predate Moses by hundreds of years.
Why did people have such prescriptions and proscriptions? Because they felt the need to circumscribe human behavior. These legal codes represented the laws of necessity which invariably set themselves up in various forms in most, if not all, communities. Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, respect your parents, don’t get turned on by your neighbour’s wife. There’s nothing especially divine in these concepts, nothing that common sense wouldn’t tell you.
Of course, these and other commands never stopped true believers from breaking them. After all, they were only written for home consumption, each and every one. For example, "Thou shalt not steal" [Exodus 20:15] - sure! But it was perfectly OK to "spoil the Egyptians." [i.e. rob them blind!] [Exodus 3:22] "Thou shalt not kill" [Exodus 20:13] Sure! But it was never a crime to butcher the enemy. [Numbers 31] These days you can be elected President of the US and have no qualms about killing hundreds of people on death row!
The 10 Commands condemned adultery. [Exodus 20:14] It was prohibited but not for King David [a man after god’s own heart] [Acts 13:22] He seduced Bathsheba, after he spied on her taking a bath. He had her husband, Uriah, sent off on a dangerous military mission where he conveniently died! [Sam 2 Chap 11] David married Bathsheba and her son, Solomon, later became king! So much for the crime and punishment for adultery!
There are a lot of silly commands about disregarding all the other competing gods and keeping the Sabbath holy. Also the condemnation of sculpture and art work or anything which depicted human, animal or divine objects. [Exodus 20:4] You must keep in mind that to break these commands was a capitol offense.
Well, that’s all Old Testament stuff you might be thinking and pretty bloodthirsty. So it is and so it was. We’ve got beyond that now. That’s partly true, but the nonsense and respect given to Old Testament "morality" and the Ten Commands is truly sickening. People claim, for example, that the Columbine shooting could have been avoided if only they had posted the Ten Commands in the school! Can anybody seriously consider that such an exercise would have had any influence on the Columbine behavior? It makes you wonder what benefit it gave to the Serb soldiers and the way treated the Albanians in Kosovo, It must be admitted that most of these men had received a good church upbringing and were proud of their pious imperatives. "Kill them all," was their motto, "God will take care of his own!" Probably even Milosovich was well acquainted with the Bible and the 10 Commands. We should reflect also on the benefits of church teachings Northern Ireland, where the Protestants and Roman Catholics butcher each other with delight; or the middle east where pious Jews and Arabs ambush and kill each other on a daily basis.
What about the Golden Rule, surely that’s universal? In one shape or another we find the Theory of Reciprocity expressed from Confucius to Jesus and from Hillel to ? [get the facts] "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." [Matthew 7:12] Sometimes we find it in the negative form which makes a little more sense. According to some authorities the negative Golden Rule is an improved maxim. "Do not do unto others what you would not like others to do unto you" Is the Golden Rule in one form or another, the secret of a good life and good behavior? It is tempting to say "Eureka, we have found it!" but as your resident Skeptic let me point out that the Golden Rule is a form of philosophic anarchy. A good rule, perhaps, in the hands of a "good" benevolent person but a terrible one in the hands of a psychopath. For example, the child abuser who does unto others etc..? The good swimmer who pushes the non-swimmer into the deep end of the pool? How does one apply the Golden rule to the so-called sport of boxing? Or Fox hunting? Or Bull fighting? What about Dueling? What about war? The fallacy of the Golden Rule as a universal concept becomes apparent. It is, in fact, a form of philosophical anarchy.
So let’s get down to the nitty gritty. What
is "Morality" and can it be defined? Funk and Wagnalls says "Moral" means,
"Related to conduct or character from the point of view of right and wrong."
"Morality" is "…the quality of being morally right". Never mind the dictionaries,
in actual fact, I maintain that all morality is based on local custom.
The word is derived from the root word "More" which means "custom." It
has no higher meaning whatever than what the local custom may be. For
instance it is considered quite "moral," in a Muslim country, for a man to marry
as many as 4 wives, providing he has the money to support them. Remember that
King Solomon was renowned for his wisdom] and he had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
[1 Kings 11:3] All quite "moral" for his day and age. The Mormons
would like to continue the custom in Utah but the US Government won’t let them
practice their religion. It’s funny when you think that foreign dignitaries
come to the US with several wives and nobody objects, especially when they occupy
a whole floor of the Cleveland Clinic!
Until the time of the American Civil War it was quite "moral" for Americans to own slaves. There were no laws against it. It was an ancient right which had been accepted throughout history. All of these acts may have, at one time, been considered "moral" because they complied with the local mores, but were they ethical? Ethics are not quite the same as Morals, they differ because they are based on higher principles. They are supposed to have universal application. The word Ethics comes from the Greek "Ethos" which meant "Character." According to the Columbia Encyclopedia: "Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct which the individual has constructed for himself or as the body of obligations and duties which a particular society requires of its members. Ethics has developed as man has reflected on the intentions and consequences of his acts."
In the final analysis who actually decides what
is right and what is wrong? The answer is the ones who make the laws.
Local customs are local habits which have been reinforced by strong leadership
and the passage of time. As the old saying goes: "The one who pays the
Piper calls the tune." A more modern version of this theme is the Woman’s
movement definition of the Golden Rule which says: "The one with the gold makes
the rules!"
In all fairness I must admit that most people use the words "Morality" and "Ethics"
interchangeably. To the average person the teaching of morality is simply
teaching the difference between right and wrong.
Having said all this it’s time to ask ourselves how can "Morality", as such, be assessed? Is it possible to analyze the basis of Morality in a way that we can understand it? Can it be quantified, organized, studied and taught? The first attempts along these lines were undertaken early on in the 20th century. We should mention the work of Jean Piaget, the Swiss psychologist [1896-1980] who made extensive studies in child behavior. He formulated the ideas of what he called Moral realism and the Morality of cooperation. Children, when they are very young, said Piaget, believe that rules are absolute and cannot be changed. As they mature they start to comprehend that people make rules and people can change them. This marked the beginning of what Piaget called the morality of cooperation.
In the 1970’s, Lawrence Kohlberg at Harvard [1927-1987] took over where Piaget left off. Although very few people have ever heard of Kohlberg, he achieved the same amount of distinction in moral development as Darwin’s did to the field of Biology, or Noam Chomsky to the study of Language.
Kohlberg was a professor at Harvard University
for many years. His fame stems from his research work during the 1970’s
where he developed his theory of moral development. He based his ideas
on the thinking of the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget and the American philosopher
John Dewey.[1859-1952] Both these men emphasized that human beings developed
psychologically and philosophically in a progressive fashion. Kohlberg
theorized that the moral attitudes [namely their bases for moral behavior] progressed
through a series of stages. Kohlberg classified them into three levels
and six identifiable stages. His ideas are fascinating.
The first level of moral thinking is generally found at the elementary school
and it has two stages. Stage one has been termed Punishment-obedience
Orientation. People in this stage obey rules in order to avoid punishment.
A good or bad action is determined by its physical consequences. At stage
1 children behave according to the socially accepted norms because they have
been told to do so by some authority figure such as a parent or teacher.
Compliance is compelled by the threat or application of punishment.
Example of Stage K1 "I do not say bad words
because if I do my Mom will
get mad at me."
The second stage of this level has been called Personal Reward Orientation. In this stage personal needs determine right or wrong. Favors can be returned on the basis of you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. Right behavior means acting in one’s own best interests. There is a certain amount of selfishness in this overall view of life.
Example of Stage K2: "For a cookie, I will pick up my toys."
At Level 2 called Conventional, there are also two stages. First, there is Stage 3 which is what Kohlberg called "Good boy - Nice girl Orientation. A person’s behavior is determined by what pleases and what is approved by others.
Example of Stage K3: "I do not eat in class because my teacher does not like it."
In the 4th Stage we find the "Law and Order Orientation." It takes the view that everybody should abide by the law and respond to the obligations of duty. All laws are absolute and authority must be respected for social order to be maintained.
Example of Stage K4: "I do not talk during a fire drill because that is one of the rules."
Finally, Kohlberg described for us the Post-conventional Level, where judgments are based on abstracts and are not necessarily defined by society’s laws but personal principles. Once again, we find two stages. Stage 5, he called Social Contract Orientation. At this stage, "Good" is determined by socially agreed upon individual rights. A person operating at this moral stage believes that different societies have different views of what is "Right" and "Wrong."
Example of Stage K5: "I pay taxes because it is the law."
The 6th and final stage, Kohlberg calls the Universal Ethical Principle Orientation. What is "good" and "right" are matters of individual conscience and involve abstract concepts of "justice", human dignity and equality. At this stage persons believe there are universal points of view on which all societies should agree. Unfortunately, Kohlberg believed that the third level of moral thought is one not ever reached by the majority of adults. In the first stage [stage K5] there is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The 6th and final stage is based on respect for universal principles and the demands of individual conscience
Example of Stage K6: "I pay taxes not because it is the law, but because it is the right thing to do."
Professor Lawrence Kohlberg died young. He was only 60 years old, but his incisive mind and his principles will be around for centuries to come. Most interesting were his moral dilemmas. Kohlberg would write a story which involved a moral dilemma and outline a plan for teachers to challenge their pupils after they had read the story. Many such methods are still being used today.
To sum up. Let me say that morality and behavior can be studied and improved upon just like any other subject. I think that the world of the 3rd millennium needs to encourage ever larger populations to advance through all the levels of Professor Kohlberg until the majority could be called stage K6.
I want to leave you all with a moral dilemma straight from Kohlberg.
"In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, ‘No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.’ So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife."
1. Should Heinz steal the drug? Why
or why not?
2. Is it actually right or wrong for him to steal the drug? Why
is it right or wrong?
3. Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the drug? Why or
why not?
4. If Heinz doesn’t love his wife should he steal the drug for her?
Does it make a difference in what Heinz should do
whether or not he loves his wife? Why or why not?
5. Suppose the person dying is not his wife but a stranger. Should
Heinz steal the drug for a stranger? Why or why not?
6. Suppose it’s a pet animal he loves, should Heinz steal to save a pet
animal? Why or why not?
7. Is it important for people to do everything they can to save another’s
life? Why or why not?
8. It is against the law to steal. Does that make it morally wrong?
Why or why not
9. In general, should people try to do everything they can to obey the
law? Why or why not? How does this apply to what Heinz should do?
10. In thinking back over the dilemma, what would you say is the most
responsible thing for Heinz to do? Why?
Thank you all for coming.