The source of morality (Part 1)

Where does morality come from? I mean, when we think about what’s right, how do we decide? I’m no expert in philosophy, but it seems to me that this is not as simple a question as it might seem, when you start to dig into it a little. At first blush it’s easy: something just “is” right or wrong. Okay, but why? Most of us got our initial sense of right and wrong from our parents and extended family. (Aunts, uncles, grandparents and friends). But that ‘s not the origin; they got their morality from somewhere. Trace it back to…what? If not the primary cause, it was likely influenced by religion. But that itself isn’t enough; each religion claims it’s the “correct” one, which by definition means that those adherents believe that all others are wrong. OK, I know, some religions are more ecumenical than others, but even the most inclusive still believe that at the core, they are more “right” than anyone else. So if that’s the source of morality then again, by definition nearly everyone is immoral, since any one religion only represents a small percentage of the total world population. And even the most hardcore believers would admit that at least some people in other religions have a sense of morality.

So religion doesn’t seem right as the source of morality; what about God? Maybe since religion is an attempt to relate to God, is God the source of morality? I’ll save that for next time.

Posted in Religion and philosophy | Leave a comment

Is morality situational?

We tend to think that “the right thing” just IS and doesn’t change regardless of circumstances. But think about it for a minute. What’s believed to be moral or “right” in a society DOES change over time. The lyrics from Cole Porter’s song “Anything Goes” illustrates my point:  “In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking, now heaven knows…anything goes!” At one point in the not-too-distant past, owning other people as property was considered moral by a subset of society. They even found support for their position with the Bible:  the Biblical Israelites (supposedly God’s chosen people) had slaves, so God must’ve approved, right? While there were people who believed it immoral here in the United States, there was certainly no consensus that it was. Today, one of the chief complaints of conservative Muslims against Western society is their perception of our lack of morals because of Western dress styles (among other reasons); clearly most people in the US believe ourselves to be moral even if some in the Middle East might not.

So morality does change over time, and from group to group. Some would say that means that there really IS no objective morality, and that since the view of morality changes with society, maybe everything is relative and to understand morality first requires understanding the context.

But it doesn’t feel right that morality is totally subjective either. There is the sense that some things are wrong no matter what group or circumstances. Taking someone’s life, for no other reason than you can, is probably wrong no matter what the circumstances. (Note that it is the reason, rather than the action itself, that makes it wrong. Killing someone in defense of your family is usually considered justified; even then you’d have to prove the justification.)

So while there ARE things that are wrong in some situations and not in others (and in some societies but not others), it seems to me that there are some things that are just wrong. Morality then can’t be exclusively situational.

 

Posted in Religion and philosophy | Leave a comment

It’s District Assembly time

Last week Cathy and I were walking around Belmont Shore (great casual dining, funky shops and Sweet Jills–the best sweet rolls in Southern California!) and I saw two young couples sitting at an outside table in a cafe. One of the women was wearing what I recognized as a JW assembly badge. When I checked online, sure enough there was a District Assembly going on at the Long Beach Convention Center. It actually gave me a jolt of nostalgia.

Jehovah’s witnesses meet together every year for assemblies. Actually for several assemblies; a Circuit Assembly (smaller) and a District Assembly (larger; made up of several Circuits). Mom tells me she’s going to her District Assembly next week. She’s 92 and it’s getting hard for her to get around, plus she can’t hear so well, yet she’s going. She told me she’s looking forward to seeing old friends (although not many are left, she tells me frequently) and being seen. I remember assemblies very well. I’ve told friends that I’ve been to more Major League baseball parks than anyone I knew, but I’d never been to a ball game until a few years ago (most of the District Assemblies were held in baseball stadiums back then). The assemblies were meant to be a “spiritual feast” for the faithful, but as a young male JW they were my major social event of the year (read: a chance to meet girls). The assemblies would be three or four days long, all day. Each day would be a series of talks, a break for lunch, then more talks, another break, and then more talks. Pretty grueling for a little kid, but we were expected to sit quietly during the talk, take notes (which meant write down all the scriptures they cited) and appear engaged. I remember them as uncomfortable (suits or jackets and ties), hot (the seats in the shade were usually taken up early, so we sat in the sun a lot) and incredibly boring. And boy did those seats get hard! When Jim and I got old enough we’d work as attendants; helping people find seats, sometimes handing out programs. Being attendants was fun at least. And we’d get to hang out with our friends between sessions. And meet girls.

Writing this now it sounds like the assemblies were a pain, but I honestly enjoyed them (overall). I sure don’t miss the endless talks, but I have to say I miss that sense of belonging and community.

Not enough to want to go with Mom next weekend though.

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it... | Leave a comment

The nature of friendship

It occurs to me that there are several kinds of friendships. Or maybe a number of different types of relationships that all get lumped together as friendships. Or maybe it’s just that people define friendship in many different ways.

It’s tempting to define friends as people you spend the most free time with; after all why would you spend your precious free time with someone not a friend? But in looking back, I realize that there are people I knew, and likely even described as friends, but we really only shared one thing in common and when that thing stopped being relevant we drifted apart and neither of us have made efforts to reconnect.

But allowing a friend to drift away doesn’t necessarily mean the friendship wasn’t real either. For example, I just spoke a couple of days ago with Scott, an old friend; we used to work together. We’d go to lunch at least once a week; sometimes more frequently and argue politics, religion, philosophy and all kinds of things. Great, stimulating conversations. I moved on to another company, then returned three and a half years later. During that time he left as well, but we stayed in touch, getting together every three or four months and talking more frequently. Anyhow, every time we see each other now our conversation seems to take up right where we left off the last time, even if several months have gone by. I’ve got a number of friends like that; it seems like no matter how much time passes between contacts we take up like no time had elapsed. It strikes me that the kind of relationship that aren’t affected be either time or distance is a pretty good indication of real friendship.

Not sure what that says about me, but there you go.

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it... | Leave a comment

Sense of community or cyber voyeurism?

This whole question of connectedness continues to bounce around in my head.

I got an email today from someone I’ve never met, but I’ve now heard from twice. It was by no means an intrusion or unwelcome, just surprising. They came across my website in the course of doing some internet searching, and discovering a (somewhat distant) connection to me, got in touch with me. Actually, it was exactly that reason that I deliberately included mechanisms in the website for reaching out to me. In any case, they did and due to the nature of the connection suggested it would be nice to get together with me if/when I get back to the Midwest. Without the website they probably never would have discovered the connection nor decided to contact me. I don’t know how much of an impact this will make in the broader scheme of things, but it definitely makes it a more interesting situation for me. I’ve probably had 10 people locate me (in cyberspace anyway) through Facebook that I’ve lost touch with over the years, and although some of them were acquaintances rather than truly close friends, it was nice to reconnect.

So on one side there’s that.

The other side is what all this information out in cyberspace may be doing. I’ve been the victim of identity theft. Whether that was directly because of the availability of information on the Net or not I couldn’t say, but it seems likely it played a role. People have discovered to their chagrin that photos they posted on the Internet can come back to haunt them years later when they’re applying for a job.  When you read some blogs you wonder if the bloggers realize how much they’re revealing.

I’ve already said I’m on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and so forth; obviously I’ve come down on the side of Internet community. But I’m conscious of the potential for unintended consequences.

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it... | Leave a comment

Connectivity or anonymity?

I now have a blog, a Twitter account, I have more email addresses than is sensible, I’m on LinkedIn, Facebook, Yammer at work and have a website (which is seriously in need of an overhaul, but that’s a different subject. And project). Is all that “connectivity” good? Are we really improving our communication? Are we communicating at all, or just adding to the cacaphony of electronic noise out there, with all these different social media devices? I’m not sure of the answer, but I’ve obviously made my decision to add to the…whatever it is. Conversation? Whistling in the dark? Connecting?

It can definitely add to the creepiness factor if you’re not careful. In working on a series of projects with a vendor, my primary contact and account manager is a woman I’ve never met in person, but I got curious the other day when we were talking, doing the short obligatory “what’s the weather like where you are?” and so forth, and wondered what she looked like. So I Googled her name and within about 20 seconds had a photo from her LinkedIn profile. We’re now “friends” on Facebook (quid pro quo and all), but it struck me that if I can find a person’s photo that quickly, imagine what someone who REALLY knows what they’re doing could discover! Cathy (my lovely spousal unit) only just recently got a Facebook account; she prefers her anonymity but I suggest that’s an illusion. We remain anonymous not because no one can find out stuff about us, but because there’s so MUCH out there that we disappear into the background…the proverbial needle in a haystack.

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it... | Leave a comment

Hello World!

Not very original first comment, I know but I think it’s appropriate. Seems like everyone in the known universe has a blog so it’s doubtful anyone will actually read this unless of course I’ve specifically sent you here, so I’m going to operate under the assumption that you’re someone I know. So: Hi there! Chances are you’ve looked through the Web site (www.shaddle.com); if you’ve got ANYTHING to add or modify let me know. When it’s a correction I try to get it changed right away. If it’s a suggestion I take it under serious consideration. (Meaning I may do it or I may not; no firm promises here.)

Anyhow, Here we go!

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it... | Leave a comment