I will be publishing my book -- To Make A Better World -- on the 30th of April, 2015. That's later this week, Thursday to be precise! So here is the final teaser excerpt from my book, and it's a "two-for". You will be able to get your eBook copy through Amazon.com. Be sure to share this excerpt far and wide, enjoy, tell me your thoughts and, thanks.
 |
| Image Copyright, 2015, by Joshua Michail |
FROM: To Make A Better World; The handbook for good secular living in the modern era.
This excerpt -- #6 -- from two chapters: FROM: "Morality & Secularity" and FROM: "Honor in this Modern Age".
(NOTE: ellipses indicate skipped content.)
We are moral. At least as far as it being a part of being human goes.
Of course, there are some who are not. But, mostly we are moral. The
fundamental point is that since morality is the evolved trait that
helps our species work together for our mutual benefit, logically it
is not only the religious who are moral. That is a sort of birthright
of our species. Morality is a defining feature of us. This, alone,
would be good enough to say we can be good without god. But,
religions are actually, in and of themselves, corrosive to morality.
The first problem is that they demand one place the supposed deity
above everyone else. This is contradictory to what works for a
community.
I don't want to hear excuses about how someone else is behaving
badly. You are responsible for yourself. No other person is
responsible for what you say or do. Firstly, one should understand
that whether or not other people behave morally must in no way
influence whether one behaves morally him or her self. We are all
responsible for our own actions and words. No individual can
rationally justify his/her behavior on account of another. The
greater good is achieved by the accumulation of individual acts of
good deeds.
As Robert F. Kennedy had said: “Some people see things as they are and say, 'why?' I dream of things that never were and say, 'why not?'” But society can never be improved without the benevolent actions of individuals. The argument against behaving properly that so many others are not also behaving properly is flawed. Easily rebutted with something like “If everyone else were jumping off a cliff, should you as well?” If every person were to excuse him or her self from being ethical and moral on the imagined pretense that no one else is then no good change in the society can happen.
As Robert F. Kennedy had said: “Some people see things as they are and say, 'why?' I dream of things that never were and say, 'why not?'” But society can never be improved without the benevolent actions of individuals. The argument against behaving properly that so many others are not also behaving properly is flawed. Easily rebutted with something like “If everyone else were jumping off a cliff, should you as well?” If every person were to excuse him or her self from being ethical and moral on the imagined pretense that no one else is then no good change in the society can happen.
I'd say that without morals a person is just an animal
and dishonors himself/herself, one has no dignity without a strong
self discipline. This doesn't mean that we need religion or
spirituality. No moral code worthy of the human intellect could come
from religion, but rather from an honest respect for one's fellow
people. So that those who would think everything is permitted because
they've shed the chains of delusion, are in fact no better than those
who remain chained in slavery to the dogma of cult leaders. For,
however liberating it certainly is and however noble it is to see the
light and walk out of that cave of perverse corruption that
charlatans will push, we are not honorable nor dignified when we
mistreat others, when we make ourselves lawless brutes. When we fail
to discipline ourselves, to abandon ourselves the to the animal
within, we become unworthy of any respect. When we fail to maintain
inside ourselves a compass, not given from out of the archaic ethers
but rather from our fellowship of humanity and our empathy, we make
ourselves deserving of the receiving back the abuses that we give. .
. .
Ethics are a system of behavioral rules based on both empathy and
morality and is designed to address specific possible situations.
While morality is a set of general philosophical codes of right and
wrong, of justice and of social order. Thus murder is immoral, but
sometimes killing another person can be ethically acceptable, such as
in the case of self-defense against someone who is a clear and
immediate threat to one's life. Then, we can say that it must be our
natural ability to comprehend what another person experiences, to
grasp how we would feel in the same situation. That is the
foundation. We would not want someone kill us, so we can appreciate
that others would not want us to kill them. From this the moral code
is constructed, in large part due to all the other things we are
taught as we develop intellectually.
Essentially, a person must understand that there is a
greater and more personal advantage to being ethical and moral than
just improving society. When one chooses to behave in accordance with
his or her code of ethics and morality, a code that values peace,
respect and logical order, then one finds himself or herself avoiding
many problems and dangers. Being an ethical and moral person means
that one can enjoy a quality of life that would not be possible
otherwise. Even when no other person behaves as a human one who
refuses to degrade himself or herself, one who chooses to behave as a
human ought to, can take comfort in knowing that he/she is exercising
the true human potential. It is much better to be a good person and
so earn the trust and respect of others than to behave immorally and
earn the disdain and disrespect of others. When one behaves morally
one can hold his/her head upright and take pride in exercising
superiority over the primitive animal urges and tendencies, a
superiority afforded by the nature of being human.
From the chapter on honor:
There are essentially two kinds of honor any person holds. The first
is “interpersonal honor” in which a person's level of honor is
relevant to his or her interactions with others on a daily basis. A
person might consider you more honorable if you have been a good
friend to him or her. But it is important to note that one's honor is
not affected by insults. That is to say that your honor does not in
any way depend on a person calling you, for example, a “bitch” or
calling your friend or mate such a name. On the contrary, a person
who is attempting to antagonize a person by calling another names is
in fact damaging his or her own honor by doing so. The second kind of
honor is “social honor” in which a person is considered by the
society to be of a certain level of honor based on the individual's
value to the society. For example, an ordinary person is considered
to be of standard honor, while a scientist, doctor, politician or
judge is considered to be “honorable” (as an elevated status) and
thus is given that title.
While both types of honor are affected by a person's
actions, behaviors, achievements and contributions, the interpersonal
type will vary among the people one associates with. Whereas, the
social type is less movable and depends more on the person's position
and accomplishments as recognized by the society. The importance of
honor in the society is that one's treatment by others and the
society as a whole is dependent upon one's honor. A dishonorable
person receives less respect and is often shunned by others. A person
should therefore wish to avoid the loss of his or her honor.
Meanwhile, those who improve our society are rewarded with a higher
regard by the society and the people within.
©
2015, Joshua Michail
No comments:
Post a Comment