*Note: This entry first appeared as a “Letter To The Editor” in the Southtown Star newspaper. In the published piece a couple of lines were edited out. I am including the edited lines here. This is my response to an editorial by the editors of the newspaper which ran on Sept. 7, 2008, entitled: “Radical Change Needed To Fix Societal Woes”.
Pursuit of Morals
I appreciated your editorial “Radical Change Needed To Fix Societal Woes”, September 7, 2008. You are certainly right that there are problems of violence in our culture that have morality at their root. And I join with you in admitting that these are not issues that have a quick and easy fix.
One of the questions that the editorial raised, for me, was “how do we inculcate and encourage good morals?” When we read that more120 people were shot and killed in Chicago this summer, it’s hard to avoid the issue of morality.
I would like to suggest that the inculcation and pursuit of morals will always require that truths about ourselves must be honestly faced—truths that will not necessarily be comfortable. As a culture, we seem to be pretty big on comfort and trying to ensure that no one ever feels guilty. I admit that I find that comfort-seeking tendency in myself, as well. However, wrestling, personally, with moral truth will often make us uncomfortable. This is a form of discomfort we must be willing to endure. Most of us would agree that it is a form of discomfort which is preferable to the discomfort of a bullet.
Also, morals, by definition, have to do with right and wrong and the pursuit of that which is right. This will mean that those who hold up standards of right and wrong—parents, teachers, clergy, and other leaders—should not be quickly and thoughtlessly labeled intolerant and small minded. Morality, in our culture, is sometimes actually discouraged because those who would champion standards of right and wrong fear being labeled as repressive, backward, and other names that are even less pleasant.
Also, some seem to have great disdain for the mention of God and/or religion along with the subject of morality. And it is understandable in a religiously pluralistic society that introducing God into the discussion could heat up the debate. However, the founders of our country assumed that our morality would involve God and that without that basis it would not work.
This is what George Washington said in his “Farewell Address” to our new young nation: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
It can be difficult for naturalistic and materialistic worldviews to provide a solid philosophical basis for morality because they ultimately fall back to the kind of relativism that is part of the moral confusion that your editorial correctly laments.
So, even though I know references to God and religion can, in some ways, make the discussion of morality more difficult, the alternative seems to be to continue in the direction we are currently heading.
The obvious question is: How’s that working?
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
Pursuit of Morals
I appreciated your editorial “Radical Change Needed To Fix Societal Woes”, September 7, 2008. You are certainly right that there are problems of violence in our culture that have morality at their root. And I join with you in admitting that these are not issues that have a quick and easy fix.
One of the questions that the editorial raised, for me, was “how do we inculcate and encourage good morals?” When we read that more120 people were shot and killed in Chicago this summer, it’s hard to avoid the issue of morality.
I would like to suggest that the inculcation and pursuit of morals will always require that truths about ourselves must be honestly faced—truths that will not necessarily be comfortable. As a culture, we seem to be pretty big on comfort and trying to ensure that no one ever feels guilty. I admit that I find that comfort-seeking tendency in myself, as well. However, wrestling, personally, with moral truth will often make us uncomfortable. This is a form of discomfort we must be willing to endure. Most of us would agree that it is a form of discomfort which is preferable to the discomfort of a bullet.
Also, morals, by definition, have to do with right and wrong and the pursuit of that which is right. This will mean that those who hold up standards of right and wrong—parents, teachers, clergy, and other leaders—should not be quickly and thoughtlessly labeled intolerant and small minded. Morality, in our culture, is sometimes actually discouraged because those who would champion standards of right and wrong fear being labeled as repressive, backward, and other names that are even less pleasant.
Also, some seem to have great disdain for the mention of God and/or religion along with the subject of morality. And it is understandable in a religiously pluralistic society that introducing God into the discussion could heat up the debate. However, the founders of our country assumed that our morality would involve God and that without that basis it would not work.
This is what George Washington said in his “Farewell Address” to our new young nation: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
It can be difficult for naturalistic and materialistic worldviews to provide a solid philosophical basis for morality because they ultimately fall back to the kind of relativism that is part of the moral confusion that your editorial correctly laments.
So, even though I know references to God and religion can, in some ways, make the discussion of morality more difficult, the alternative seems to be to continue in the direction we are currently heading.
The obvious question is: How’s that working?
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
No comments:
Post a Comment