Dear Mr. Ethicist,
First, let me say how much I enjoy your column. I read it every day!
Now, on to my ethical question.
I recently lost my dear, dear old mother. She was the most wonderful mother a guy could have. She brought me into the world, put cold compresses on my fevered head when I was a child, was a Den Mother in my Cub Scout Pack, etc.
Dad died about ten years ago and every Sunday she'd visit his grave in the ritzy cemetery and put flowers on it. She always said, “Son, when I die please bury me next to your father.” It seemed to be very, very important to her and I, of course, said I'd honor her wishes. And I meant it, I really did.
But then she died and money was a bit tight and I thought to myself, “I loved her in life but she is gone and a pledge made to what is now a corpse has no more ethical significance than a pledge made to a rock or a stick.”
So, to be honest, I had her cremated and scattered her ashes from a coffee can (a la The Big Lebowski :-) in the backyard and used the money I saved to buy a large flat screen TV.
Did I do anything wrong?
I mean, my mother doesn't exist anymore, does she? A pledge to a non-existent entity can't be binding.
Can it?
Sincerely,
Bill from Bethlehem
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Theological Discussions is a group blog from a variety of individuals for the mutual understanding and civilized discussion on philosophical and theological matters, ranging from the Existence of God to social morals and mores and the Scientific Method, and everything in between.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(23)
-
►
May
(13)
- God and Subjectivity
- Practical Christianity
- Some Thoughts on the Knowledge of God
- How do we know what we know about God(s)?
- Additional Intro for Bill Bekkenhuis
- Evangelical Manifesto
- Rational Methods
- 'Respect atheists', says Cardinal
- A Theory of Knowledge
- "Empirical Atheism"?
- Varieties of god worth recognizing
- What can we know about God(s)?
- Faith and Knowledge
-
►
May
(13)
8 comments:
Alright, I'll bite. Given your situation, I personally cannot endorse such an action. But not for the reason you've posited ...
Here, I see that personal accountability is the more important thing. If you're an honest person, then when you say you'll do something , you'll do your best to do it because it is the right thing to do. And, along those lines, when someone wants you to do something wrong, you should not give your word, because you know it's not something you'd actually carry through on.
Thus, if you give your word to someone, it's not them that will be holding you accountable, but rather yourself. In this example, "you" have failed in "your" agreed-upon duty. "Your" mother, being dead, cannot enforce this failure upon you, and in our culture, no-one else will either. But "you" know it, and have to live with the knowledge of "your" choice and the failing of "your" pledge. The TV should, in this case, serve as a great reminder of your failure.
But, I expect that the crux of your whole point is summed up in one of the last questions of the post, A pledge to a non-existent entity can't be binding.
See, by my reasoning, whether your entity exists or not, an agreement is an agreement. You are the one who will should hold yourself accountable for your actions, not the entity.
And, whether the entity is a living being, inanimate object, or imaginary deity makes no difference, as it is you who are alive to make the pledge and follow through with it that makes a difference.
So ... I have to ask. What's the real ethical question? I didn't answer this post for a while because I just don't see the issue. Honesty is important in almost all cultures, and self-integrity/ self-worth are as well. Concepts of trust are the basis for social sharing important for the survival of groups.
If you're asking if it's alright for you to reneg on a promise just because the entity you made the promise to is dead now, then you're asking a moral question, because it's personal. To bring it to ethics, you're looking at group values. How binding does your group feel such an agreement is? What are the social/ economic/ judicial repercussions of your actions if you made them known? I think that's the more pertinant question if that's really what you're asking.
If the mother simply ceases to exist and there is no all-knowing, judging entity 'out there somewhere' paying attention to what we do, then I would say those actions are not bad nor wrong. If done privately, there is no reason to worry or fret over such a deed. If done privately, I believe the majority of human beings, by selfish human nature, would have absolutely no qualms about breaking their 'pledge' or not 'keeping their word' in such a situation. If private, why?! care about such a thing? For what reason?
I will say that if made known, depending upon the culture, it could have consequences in the respect that one could be ostracized by their society for such actions (or perhaps frowned upon and distrusted).
However, it is not public deeds that concern me. It is private deeds. If there is no all-knowing, judging 'entity', then things done in private are neither good nor bad, they just 'are' no matter how 'extreme' and 'evil' they may seem in a public light.
Many of us online are *very* fortunate to live in societies where the law is very strong and difficult to escape, but the majority of the world is not so fortunate. Crime is easily committed without repercussion in many third world countries. Indeed, only 100 - 200 years ago in many of our countries, it was easier to 'get away with' crime. Without an 'all-knowing', judging 'entity', the people who commit those crimes have no reason to fret and every reason to commit them to get rich or to get rid of a hated person or people that make one's life inconvenient.
Of course, I've only mentioned acts committed by an 'average' person of 'average' to no 'power' or 'influence'. Think how much more a person of 'influence' and 'power' could justify their actions (evil though they may seem to us).
I pull the Russian author Dostoyevsky out of my 'hat' all the time because his novels speak a great deal of truth on these very issues. Read some of his works, and you will get a very vivid picture of how twisted, and dangerous things can become when atheism is taken to its logical ends.
Here's the deal.... This is difficult to impossible for an atheist to admit, but there are those who have, including probably the most famous, Neitzsche, with his "Superman" above all right and wrong. It is difficult because they realize that to admit such a thing publicly means that society must distrust them. In my opinion, they are also heavily influenced by the pervasiveness of religious thought in the majority of society around them. They may 'feel bad' for certain deeds, though when logically thought out, there is no real reason for such feelings. The majority religious society around them believes certain moral things, and to go against those things is to go against society (which is not particularly beneficial to the atheist).
It truly baffles me that some others do not see these things. I am absolutely convinced that they are either fooling themselves because they want to 'be good' (determined of course by the majority religious society around them), a sort of 'cognitive dissonance', or they are flat out lying because it could be potentially damaging to their welfare in society since people might forever after distrust them.
Anyway, I find these things extremely strong arguments against atheism, and things that weigh very heavily in my decision to be a theist.
Bryan wrote:
It truly baffles me that some others do not see these things. I am absolutely convinced that they are either fooling themselves because they want to 'be good' (determined of course by the majority religious society around them), a sort of 'cognitive dissonance', or they are flat out lying because it could be potentially damaging to their welfare in society since people might forever after distrust them.
Anyway, I find these things extremely strong arguments against atheism, and things that weigh very heavily in my decision to be a theist.
Why is it that you can't see an individual having some degree of personal accountability/ responsibility? Your painting all atheists as having no bounds when it comes to what they do is sort of the equivilant of equating all theists with the likes of Jim Jones or any of the other religious types who have killed their followers or their enemies in most attrocious manners based on their theology or 'messages from god(s)'.
Atheists have morals just as anyone else. The fact that their morals are not bound by an ethical code that's rooted in fear of punishment by a diety doesn't preclude them from knowing 'right' from 'wrong'. It just means that their varieties of 'right' and 'wrong' are likely to be a bit more based on social ethical codes rather than religious onces.
I don't understand why theists can't see that ...
Why is it that you can't see an individual having some degree of personal accountability/ responsibility?
First, I believe you are misunderstanding me greatly.
Second, from the perspective I take, I have no idea what "personal accountability or responsibility" mean. "Personal accountability/responsibility" is merely "Do what's best for me." You really have to put yourself into it and take the beliefs to their logical end and answer the tough questions I've put out. If you say "personal accountability" in the "mother instance" of this post, *why* *must* one consider "personal accountability" disposing of his mother's ashes as wished. *What* is "personal accountability to a non-entity, especially when it conflicts with personal interest?
Your painting all atheists as having no bounds when it comes to what they do...
No. Here is where you seem to be misunderstanding me. I have several atheist friends who are wonderful and moral people. It is not my contention that they are all immoral. However, it *is* my contention that their "morality" and "goodness" is based upon the religious values and perceptions of the majority of religious folk around them. It is also my contention that, if they are intelligent enough to understand, they are completely free from any sort of "morality" because there is no ultimate judgement or punishment for any act done in private, however heinous it may seem to others. There is no accountability if there is no "God" to hold one accountable. In fact, there is nothing to be accountable for....
Atheists have morals just as anyone else.
Where do they get them? If I said "What is your reason for such-and-such moral behavior?", then what would they point me to? Many atheists today, as I have found, point to the 19th century utilitarian moral theories of Bentham and Mill, which call "right" or "good" that which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. Even if those are the moral theories some atheists point to, there is nothing to hold any atheist to *any* moral code. None of those theories/codes have any ultimate claim to authority.
So, I ask again, without the all-authoritative, all-seeing, all-judging entity, *what* is "right" and "wrong"? And, if one does not point to someone authoritative for all, then there is no standards for "right" and "wrong". They are whatever I want them to be.
The fact that their morals are not bound by an ethical code that's rooted in fear of punishment by a diety doesn't preclude them from knowing 'right' from 'wrong'.
Hex, I don't intend this to come across rude (but I feel you're not really understanding...). Please answer me what "right" and "wrong" are and how an atheist can know it? If you can do that, then you are certainly more intelligent than the many philosophers who have struggled with the question from a humanistic standpoint. Atheisism would praise you for removing its Achilles' heel.
It just means that their varieties of 'right' and 'wrong' are likely to be a bit more based on social ethical codes rather than religious onces.
So, you agree then that atheists are declared "good" in our society merely because they conform to the morals of the majority of God believing and religious society around them? However, if an atheist who is "good" for a particular moral behavior here goes to another country where that same moral behavior is "bad", then they, logically, should have no problem conforming to that "bad" behavoir because it is "good" to the society in which they now find themselves. In short, their moral values are relative and there is no "good" or "bad". For a person of religion, a particular "bad" moral behavior will most likely remain a "bad" moral behavior regardless of the values of the society in which they find themselves because there is an ultimate authority for all, not the subjective opinions of a 19th century dead guy.
Further, and this is the meat, an atheist *may* if he so desires (why not? please answer logically why not...) act out a "bad" behavior in a society that considers that particular behavoir "bad" if the atheist feels they can "get away with it" in private. If one can commit a "bad" act that benefits one in private, then logically why not???
One may fairly say that it may be difficult (though not impossible) for someone to escape judgement in our modern western societies, but that is a relatively new development. Before many modern technologies of the 20th century, it was much easier for someone to "get away" with "bad" moral behaviors that were done in private.
And, again, this is only referring to those atheists who are not in positions of great authority. Take an atheist in a position of great authority, and "anything goes" depending upon how he decides to act because he is the one who decides the moral values of the society. One immediately thinks of Nietzsche's "superman".
Another of my beliefs, along these lines, is that there are degrees of belief/disbelief in an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-judging entity. It is my belief that there are atheists who silently fall more on the "believing" side and thus act "good" morally. It is also my belief that there are religious people who silently fall more on the "disbelieving" side and thus act "bad" morally.
So, I hope you understand that I am not saying that an atheist cannot be not "good". However, that "goodness" is as compared to religious moral values, for me. If an atheist believes a certain issue in modern society to be "good", I may see it as "bad".
My expression of disbelief at why some do not get these things is not meant as an insult in the least, it is truly baffling to me why many do not understand the logical ends of atheism. So, I must believe that there is a certain "cognitive dissonance" bothering some atheists and leading them to ignore or simply refuse to accept their freedom from morality, or that they are flat out lying (remember this is not bad if there is no all-knowing entity) because it is not in their best interest to admit it, or (and option I left out) they are too busy with the practicalities of life to investigate atheism to its logical ends. There are probably other reasons, from my perspective, such as lack of requisite intelligence, or forgetting to put oneself outside one's own society to look at the problem from a larger perspective, etc.
Anyway, sorry if I offend, but this is how I view atheism. If I were to disbelieve in God, these are the views I too would take...maximize pleasure, minimize pain...that would be the only right/wrong and there would be no one with enough authority to contradict my own opinions of right/wrong (that, in fact, would be "pain" and not in my best interest).
However, as most of the ancients, creation (and the fact that anything exists at all) leads me to believe in the existence of such a God. I've noticed that "God(s)" has been a "concept" since the dawn of recorded history and probably since the dawn of time itself (if one may judge by archaeological records). I've thought about the ways that such a God would communicate with us while, at the same time, allowing us freedom. I've looked at ancient religions. I've decided, based on my own 'experience' and 'analysis' that the Christian God is the God that exists. And I believe that, even with obvious difficulties pointed out by many atheists, it is still better, more objective, and more right than atheism.
Gotcha, Bryan. Good questions, and I much better understand where you're coming from on this now.
I think it's going to work out best for me to publish this as a regular post rather than hijacking Bill's comment section here, so I'll respond in that manner.
It's also likely to take a couple of days. I can see how I'm going to do it, but the phrasing might cut things a little close, and I want to get it right. Thanks!
All I can say Bill is Wow! You have a lot of nerve to grant her last dying wish only to not honor it. In one felt swoop you broke two, possibly three, Commandments. Honoring your parents (5th) and lying (9th) are pretty severe offenses. Just read Revelation 21:8. You are counting on a great deal of assumptions. Let's get down to what matters though.
Two thing ultimately matter. Was she saved in secure salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ? The second is are you, Bill, saved through the blood of Jesus Christ. If the answer to those questions are yes, then you will be fine. Just don't forget to Repent (turn away from sinning) and trust in Jesus with your entire life and you will one day see your Mom to apologize to her. If she is saved she is alive and well and waiting for you. All will be forgiven.
My own mother died back in the 80's and she is in hell for her not believing in Jesus. My own Dad won't believe in Jesus, so he can be with all his friends in hell. He is counting on a great deal of assumptions, also. Why would God allow you to be with the loved one of your life in hell? It is called hell for a reason, but that is another discussion.
I just found out 1 out of 5 atheists believe in God even. I wrote a bit about it on my blog Debunking Atheists
Bill get saved and all will have a way of working themselves out.
Take care,
Dan
Dan,
This didn't really happen - he's arguing from a person who doesn't believe in final retribution, not something he's personally done.
Oops, egg on my face, anyway the message still fits the conversation.
Thanks for telling me that Chris. I was poking around and just stuck my nose in. Sorry for that.
Take care,
Dan
Post a Comment