Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
I have a theory. When a moral code is presented as an absolute, without the requisite logical arguments, people aren't given the opportunity to understand why they are being asked to behave a certain way. When an inflexible "source" of all knowledge is cited, people do not have to look within themselves and take a personal stake in their own behavior.
|
I find this extremely interesting and now that I think about it, this same concept can apply to areas besides religion, specifically law and government. I really wonder if this "us versus them", "civilized versus uncivilized", "moral versus immoral" mindset is the result of some discreet social conditioning. What about our society actually makes us think that if we didn't have certain components, we would be going complete batshit insane? Do we really look so lowly upon ourselves as a species that we need to be constantly kept in check so we don't go off raping and killing each other?
In prehistoric times, before religion, law, and government, we obviously weren't living a chaotic lifestyle of rape, murder, and pillaging. That would be completely unsustainable and with the population levels so low, humans would have been wiped out within a few centuries.
I think this topic could be a very good social experiment using a survey of children. The reason we use children is because they have been exposed and conditioned the same way we have but they are simply more extreme and more to the point. A person simply would have to go into a classroom and shortly discuss how we (the children, teacher, and surveyor) are good people and the surveyor would like to know what keeps us from being bad people and record the results. I think the results and reasoning behind those answers could be very interesting and may solidify or add to Flint's theory. To further expand this, go to different areas in the United States and world and contrast the different answers as well.