Morality

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/teen-killers-just-felt-right/2007/04/24/1177180615743.html

As the girls sat stony-faced in court today, Prosecutor Simon Stone said they had confessed that after partying with Eliza on the Saturday night they decided to kill her.
"Sunday morning me and (her) woke up, and we were just talking, and for some reason we just decided to kill her," one of the girls told police in her interview.
"We just did it because we felt like it, it is hard to explain," the other girl said.
"I knew we had wanted to kill someone before.
"We knew it was wrong, but it didn't feel wrong at all, it just felt right."

I was brought up a Xian, (OK, a Catholic). It was easy to have a concept of morality, (as flawed as it turned out to be). Such acts as the one described were wrong.

Without religion, (as flawed as it is), what else is there in terms of institutions to teach a concept of morality to prevent, (as much as they can be), acts such as this? Parents by themselves in our modern urban world don't have the authority or depth of history to inculcate a sense of morality and justice? If parents aren't able to do such a thing, do we just have loose cannons like these two turning up?

 

[fuelair]

Uh, there have always been "loose cannons" like this - even in the most strongly religious of times. Check w/ historians and psychiatrists on this.

 

[Katana]

There are a lot of very religious "loose cannons" everywhere.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

It's hard to believe for a second that these girls were not exposed to moral lessons in their life. Anyone with access to books, TV, or a radio--or other human beings-- has been exposed to the simple concept of empathy or at the very least, the legal ramifications of killing another human being.

Sociopaths, by their very nature, will not be dissuaded from their impulses by religion or anything else. From Wikipedia:

Antisocial personality disorder (abbreviated APD or ASPD) is a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-IV-TR recognizable by the disordered individual's disregard for social rules and norms, impulsive behavior, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others.

People who are just chatting and decide to kill someone, having "wanted to for some time", probably fit the diagnosis above. Religion, or a lack thereof, most certainly would have no impact on this behavior.

 

[Phil]

I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

 

[EGarrett]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/teen-killers-just-felt-right/2007/04/24/1177180615743.html

I was brought up a Xian, (OK, a Catholic). It was easy to have a concept of morality, (as flawed as it turned out to be). Such acts as the one described were wrong.

Without religion, (as flawed as it is), what else is there in terms of institutions to teach a concept of morality to prevent, (as much as they can be), acts such as this? Parents by themselves in our modern urban world don't have the authority or depth of history to inculcate a sense of morality and justice? If parents aren't able to do such a thing, do we just have loose cannons like these two turning up?

They're obviously insane. No amount of moral teaching will have an effect on that.

And BTW, I'd put both those girls in the electric chair. See if that "feels right."

 

[Endymion]

People who are just chatting and decide to kill someone, having "wanted to for some time", probably fit the diagnosis above. Religion, or a lack thereof, most certainly would have no impact on this behavior.

The argument from some religious people is that without religion and good old family values more and more children develop antisocial personality disorder. Personality disorders are an axis II diagnosis along with mental retardation. Axis II disorders have both genetic and environmental causes. I believe they generally can not be treated with psychotropic medications.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The argument from some religious people is that without religion and good old family values more and more children develop antisocial personality disorder. Personality disorders are an axis II diagnosis along with mental retardation. Axis II disorders have both genetic and environmental causes. I believe they generally can not be treated with psychotropic medications.

Religion also had/have a role in threatening people to do right. They planted the idea of an invisible, all seeing, cop. "Do right and get this reward, do wrong, and you will be punished."

 

[a_unique_person]

It's hard to believe for a second that these girls were not exposed to moral lessons in their life. Anyone with access to books, TV, or a radio--or other human beings-- has been exposed to the simple concept of empathy or at the very least, the legal ramifications of killing another human being.

Sociopaths, by their very nature, will not be dissuaded from their impulses by religion or anything else. From Wikipedia:

People who are just chatting and decide to kill someone, having "wanted to for some time", probably fit the diagnosis above. Religion, or a lack thereof, most certainly would have no impact on this behavior.

I think I am asking if we need a systematic teaching of morals, rather than just an ad hoc one. I am no longer a Catholic, am an atheist, but still think we need strong social institutions to have a healthy society. I am not so much in favour of removing religion as replacing it with something better.

As you say, however, in this case it may be that nothing would have stopped the murder, the two girls were just genuine sociopaths who happened to meet up with each other.

 

[CapelDodger]

As you say, however, in this case it may be that nothing would have stopped the murder, the two girls were just genuine sociopaths who happened to meet up with each other.

On past experience it's more likely to be one sociopath and one easily-led, socially inept follower that the sociopath latched onto. At least this pair had a short career.

 

[Beerina]

A religious person's only objection is they didn't perform this killing without prior consent of God.

 

[drkitten]

I think I am asking if we need a systematic teaching of morals, rather than just an ad hoc one.

That's an easy one.

No.

Without exception, every attempt to create a "system of morals" has resulted in abuse and immorality, because the question of human morality is too complex to be reducible to a formal system. The proof is left as an exercise for the history section of your local library.

Absent an actual system of morals (as opposed to a collection of ad-hoc judgements), the idea of systematic instruction is impossible. You can't systematically instruct ad-hoc material.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Without exception, every attempt to create a "system of morals" has resulted in abuse and immorality, because the question of human morality is too complex to be reducible to a formal system. The proof is left as an exercise for the history section of your local library.

Trying to make a new moral system may even be dangerous. A worst version of scientology might come out. It might be easier to evolve the moral systems we got. Drop the images, expose the stories to intense rational thought, keep the moral lessons.

 

[Piggy]

I am asking if we need a systematic teaching of morals

Whose morals? Whose system? Whose teachers?

In order to establish a "systematic teaching of morals", someone must be empowered to decide what the morals should be and who is authorized as a teacher.

And there's the rub.

Once you empower a group as teachers of morality, you risk their inevitable abuse of that power.

What happens when the corrupting influence of such power becomes too great a temptation, or attracts the merely power-hungry, and the office inevitably becomes a vehicle for indoctrination and control?

What happens when a new group, with its own self-serving ideas of morality, comes to control the helm?

Who will stop them? Who can stop them, if they are the determiners of what is right and what is wrong?

In reality, this is an impossibility. No matter who is set up as the teacher of morality, no matter whose system is chosen as the standard, the biological and physical fact is that it is still up to each of us, in our own minds, to accept or reject what is taught.

No matter what standard is adopted, it is still the individual who decides, yes, this is right, or no, this is wrong, no matter what the authorities say.

 

[qayak]

That's an easy one.

No.

Without exception, every attempt to create a "system of morals" has resulted in abuse and immorality, because the question of human morality is too complex to be reducible to a formal system. The proof is left as an exercise for the history section of your local library.

Absent an actual system of morals (as opposed to a collection of ad-hoc judgements), the idea of systematic instruction is impossible. You can't systematically instruct ad-hoc material.

Systematic teaching of morals is not the same as a system of morals to teach.

Yes, morals should be taught systematically just like math, language and science.

 

[athon]

Morals aren't a system of rules. The law is. Morality includes the ability to empathise, to see one's place in a social group, to comprehend how the effect of one's actions ripples through a community. If it was a system of rules these girls needed, then why didn't the 'murder is illegal' rule come up?

As deplorable as the crime was, I think it would be worse if they tried to justify it with reference to a religious system. 'I killed him because he was atheist' seems worse to me than 'I killed him because I had the urge to'. The latter, while brutal, is honest and I could deal with it better.

What would have prevented this crime? Who knows, but I do know that religious conviction would have had little impact in reducing one's compulsions to act according to their base desires.

Athon

 

[EHLO]

I agree that law (akin to English common law at least) does a pretty good job of expressing contemporary moral values.

The trouble is that just knowing what the law is, and even why any particular law is in place does not stop people breaking them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Religion also had/have a role in threatening people to do right. They planted the idea of an invisible, all seeing, cop. "Do right and get this reward, do wrong, and you will be punished."

I believe that's considered pre-conventional morality--the sort that normal children grow beyond.

In other words, behavior motivated solely by seeking rewards and avoiding punishment isn't based on morality.

 

[TheAntiLuddite]

I am no longer a Catholic, am an atheist, but still think we need strong social institutions to have a healthy society.

Moral systems are designed to produce societies in which the largest majority of the individuals within those societies can peacefully coexist. Civilization depends upon such systems. In order for any moral system to work per its design, a significant portion of the population must be commited to social harmony. But here's the rub: what is good for the society may not be best, or even good, for the individual. If I rob a bank, the outcome is definitely good for me (I'm now rich), and definitely bad for the people whose money was in the bank. You will always have individuals within a society who will not play by the rules, so to speak, for a variety of reasons, and there is no comprehensive moral code, either religious or secular, that can prevent such behavior. These girls wanted to kill someone, and so they did.

 

[murphyr]

Do we have any evidence of the kind of religious background these kids came from? Is it possible that they were raised in a religious home? Doesn't the fact that they acknowledged prior to committing the murder that "murder is wrong" mean they did have some set of moral guidelines that they simply chose to ignore?