Turn on the nightly news, and you will see war news from Iraq, political scandals, corporate shenanigans, school shootings, even priests being led away in handcuffs for molesting boys. Prisons have been declared overflowing, yet the streets still unsafe. Kids by the thousands have dropped out of school, taken drugs, gotten pregnant, bought guns.
We watch all this unfold from our own living rooms, often with our children sitting beside us, and we have heard the talking heads on TV advance the same theme over and over: Our society is increasingly lacking in values and moral conscience.
All of us have a stake in promoting moral conduct, and we pretty much all agree that we are in urgent need of moral instruction. Yet, if asked, most don’t recommend adding a course in ethics to the high school curriculum. Instead, most say that what we need is some of that old-time religion. That’s probably because for most of us, religion and moral instruction are one and the same.
Indeed, the effectiveness of any religion or philosophy can be measured by its results on the actions and moral conduct of its followers. A good philosophy may or may not increase one’s level of happiness, but it should certainly make one a better citizen. A philosophy that doesn’t help us live together more harmoniously is useless.
Our version of morality sets the standard by which we make up the rules that govern our society. It determines the basis for “right” and “wrong” so that we may clearly know which deeds fall into which category.
Of course, religion eliminates the need for such decision-making. It provides us with a ready-made list of vice and virtue with the Bible. No thought is required.
But before we abandon our moral choices to religion, we would do well to ask, is religion truly the best basis for morality? And would a return to religion really solve the problem of moral bankruptcy?
Shaky moral ground
Religion has an impressive list of right and wrong, and some of them are sound moral rules. But some of them are not. In fact, much of the dictates of religion have no relationship to morality at all, but are bound up in dogma.
For example, according to Christianity salvation lies not in moral behavior but in the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the son of God. The glad tidings of Christianity is not that we must sin no more, but that we will be forgiven no matter what we do. The most vile of murderers can accept Jesus, be forgiven, and be welcomed into Heaven, while good and loving men who do not accept Christ are still doomed to damnation. In most religions, dogma supersedes morality, and so inevitably becomes the saboteur of morality.
"Religion," said Alfred North Whitehead, "is the last refuge of human savagery. The uncritical association with goodness is directly negatived by plain facts."
Faith in Jesus as the son of God does not necessarily overflow into charity and good works, as proven by the Crusaders and Inquisitors and witch hunters. History unequivocally reveals that more blood has been shed due to religious zeal than for any other reason.
Religion-based morality is further crippled with its claims to be enforced with an irreversible system of rewards and punishments. But moral obligation is something that must be accepted, not imposed. A person can perform actions which are truly moral only when those actions aren't compelled by the fear of hell or the hunger for heaven.
"So long as a man's duty has another voice he is not yet free and therefore not responsible," writes Abraham Kaplan. Ultimately, religion doesn’t help us to become moral people, it merely blackmails us into becoming obedient children.
Even more troubling is what happens when the religious authority we have accepted presents a list of right and wrong which was written in a long-past era and conflicts with our own feelings about what is right and wrong.
“The majority of men will not oppose the morality they have accepted,” says Ayn Rand. “They will break it, they will cheat on it, but they will not oppose it; and when they break it, they take the blame on themselves.”
Crippling shame, guilt, hypocrisy and dishonesty are all common side effects of accepting the morality imposed by religious authority. Such demons eat away at the self, but there are still more that destroy our relationships to other people.
Anger, judgment, intolerance, and hate also rise like poisons from Pandora’s Box when we depend on religion to determine morality. Think of the countless lives of women and innocent children that were once ruined because the woman broke the moral code by bearing the child out of wedlock. Think of the countless boys and men derided, assaulted and even beaten to death because of homosexuality. Think of the horrible and bloody wars waged in the name of God.
“The power of morality is the greatest of all intellectual powers,” adds Rand. “And mankind’s tragedy lies in the fact that the vicious moral code men have accepted destroys them by means of the best within them.” Our moral sense is our greatest asset until we surrender it to religion. Then it becomes our greatest downfall.
Absolutism vs. relativism
Religious moral authority goes hand-in-hand with moral absolutism, which says there must be only one standard for morality (most often one’s particular scriptures), and insists that that standard applies to all people in all places at all times.
Ignorance of that standard by people in other places or times, says the absolutist, does not in any way change it. Cultural differences may be given a token nod, but by and large, the moral standard, and its expression in rules, is unchangeable. Thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill.
It is easy to agree that the rules gleaned from the biblical standard are “right,” yet it is also easy to think up situations where the right and wrong of it is not so ironclad. What if we lie to protect someone’s feelings? How about to save someone’s life? What if we steal food to prevent our children from starving? What if we kill in self-defense? What if we kill because our government has sent us off to war?
Try as we might to establish absolutes, we eventually discover that all ethical rules are relative to the situation in which we find ourselves. Moral conduct is always relative to time, place and circumstance.
Indeed, in today’s global society, we find ourselves becoming familiar with more times, places and circumstances than ever before. It has therefore become vital to establish a moral standard that we can all understand, agree upon and respect. Most important, we need a standard that allows us to live together more harmoniously.
A new moral stand
Of course, it is one thing to understand the need for a common standard of morality, it is quite another thing for the six billion people who share the world to agree on what that standard should be. Even if religious authority was an acceptable alternative, there are too many religions in the world, and too many different bibles, that reflect different standards of right and wrong.
Idealism suggests a common standard, formulated by Kant, which commands us to treat people not as a means, but as ends unto themselves. This is another version of the age-old Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The rule is an excellent guideline, but not a foolproof standard. Using oneself as a measure for all others is bound to fail eventually. What I perceive as kindness may be perceived disrespectful to another brought up differently.
In New Age philosophy, the only standard that promises to hold firm without inspiring a war of dissent is the inalienable right of self-determination for all. I have the right to determine what is good and right for me as long as I ensure that this right equally applies to all others.
When each of us is granted authority over our own lives, then we may not impose our beliefs on others, or any other form of manipulation of their lives -- whether it be positive or negative, religion or murder.
The outrageous proclamation that self-determination, or self-realization, is the highest moral good flies in the face of everything we have ever been taught. We are told that morality consists in doing good for others, and that sacrificing our own needs is often necessary for the benefit of others.
Yet Alan Watts poses this question: “If morality consists in doing good to one’s fellow man, it is clear that morality exists for man rather than man for morality, and the problem of what man himself is for is still undecided.”
Surely we cannot decide the basis of morality without first knowing our purpose, or “what man himself is for.” And surely morality must support this purpose. One’s ethics must be consistent with one’s metaphysics, and if we understand our purpose in being alive is to add to God’s knowledge through our individual experience, then it becomes a moral imperative to develop that experience to the best of our ability -- and to make sure all others are given the same opportunity.
In the New Age, duty to God is a duty to be true to oneself. In the words of William Ernest Hocking, it is a duty to "universalize thyself; that is, consider thyself a unique being, having a view of reality granted to no other, which is thy destiny to express: express this latent idea, make thy private feeling or intuition of the world the universal sense; incorporate it in action... revising a law, painting a picture, building an arch, educating a child; acting in such wise that your deposit of truth finds its way into the universal current of life."
This ground for morality, adds Hocking, "succeeds in its unknown cosmic business."
A leap of faith
To those who have spent their lives deferring to the booming voices of moral authority, self-determination is radical and dangerous concept. If people were allowed to make decisions about their own lives and what they do with their own bodies, many of the things we now consider right and wrong would remain the same, but quite a few would definitely change. Drug users and prostitutes would be doing nothing morally “wrong” after all.
“The terror of reform,” wrote Emerson, “is the discovery that we must cast away our virtues, or what we have always esteemed as such, into the same pit that has consumed our grosser vices.”
So yes, moral freedom is a risk, but the risk is not near as great to our safety and well-being as it is to our hallowed preconceptions. We might have to admit there is a better way to instill moral behavior than in assuming we are all base sinners unable to restrain ourselves from hurting each other. We might have to admit that, by and large, we can trust ourselves and each other.
As Alan Watts reminds us, "we are perfectly able to distinguish between up and down at any point on the earth's surface, realizing at the same time that there is no up and down in the larger framework of the cosmos."
Likewise, we are perfectly able to distinguish loving actions from destructive actions without creating categories of sin. And we are perfectly able to agree upon laws for the common good and hold lawbreakers accountable without damning them to hell for good measure.
Does this mean that New Age philosophy has no system of ethics, no sense of duty to God and the universe? No, it is only that once New Age principles are understood, morality and ethics follow naturally.
If we know that we are all equally divine, all of us One with God, then it becomes unthinkable to harm another human being. If we know the earth to be another manifestation of God, then we feel a reverence for all life and respect for nature. If we understand the true nature of God, we are compelled to unconditional love for all his incarnations, and morality is no longer a struggle, but a natural condition.
The insight of unity, Emerson concludes, “throws us on the party and interest of the universe,” and moves us inexorably “in the direction of the right and necessary.”
The greater good
The New Age declaration that self-realization is the basis for morality draws heavy fire from critics. Of course, they don’t call it self-realization, they call it “self-absorption,” or “rampant self-interest” which can only lead to mass conflict.
It is an understandable concern, and a good question to ask. What happens when following the dictates of my inner voice clashes with you following yours?
First, it’s important to know that when the New age talks about self-realization, it is not referring to the ego, that isolated and noisy and fearful and controlling part of us that most of us identify with (See The Riddle of the Self).
Pandering to the “self-interest” of the ego is exactly the situation we have today, and of course, we do indeed see mass conflict everywhere we turn. The greater good is rarely served.
The New Age advocates a different route, away from ego, because ego desires are not based in real self-interest. The ego has no interest in the real self. The ego wants only comfort and protection, no matter the cost, and many of the ego’s desires bring as much harm to the self as to others.
In true self-interest, the inner voice is the voice of soul. And, because the soul has few needs other than the here and now experience, genuine self-interest will rarely conflict with the self-interest of another. In true self-interest, our goal is not only to live and let live, but also to help live, for we cannot help but see ourselves in others.
The New Age tells us the self-realization is no realization at all if we do not see ourselves in the context of the whole. Through the self we discover others; through others we discover the self. There is no separation in reality, we are One.
Yes, we New Agers do a lot of “work” on ourselves, but not only for ourselves. We understand that a society is only as strong and healthy as the individuals within it. We understand that by becoming a more peaceful and loving individual, we are helping to create a more peaceful and loving society. We understand that we cannot reach nirvana all on our own; we must create it together.
Perhaps it is true that the New Age is a comfortable home for the self-absorbed. But I believe the potential for self-absorption lies in the person, not the philosophy. Self-absorbed people make themselves at home in all different kinds of belief systems. The New Age, however, offers many tools to help us see beyond the ego’s self-centeredness to the soul’s unity with all other selves. The New Age instills in us an abiding concern for the greater good which becomes a part of one’s being.
Go to Mindfulness & Meditation.
|
