AceM2's Journal: Knowledge of right and wrong

As I was metamoderating today (despite the fact that I have been unable to moderate since a certain incident), I saw multiple anti-Christian posts. At first glance, I assumed there was probably some strange story dealing specifically with science vs Christianity, but they were actually all unrelated threads in different sections of Slashdot. Actually, religion bashing is fairly common on Slashdot it seems. This seems unfortunate to me, as the arguments tend to be purely emotional and rarely is anything ever gained by arguing about it. At least, nothing more than higher blood pressure and some grey hairs.

I do not believe that I would be considered 'religious' by most people. I do however get complaints from both the religious and those who despise it. On the one side, no longer do I go to Church or claim a denomination. Constantly, I'm told that I have to go to Church to be a 'good' Christian. However, I still claim there is a God who set the universe in motion and gave us a foundation of knowledge to build on. So, my atheist friends whine that I believe in a 'lie' that somehow taints my judgement on all other things. Apparently, my Christian-styled morals are inferior to their same 'self'-styled ones, despite them being nearly identical for some strange reason.

Just to get it all out of the way, readily will I admit that I have done many things which I know were wrong. What's worse, is that I will most likely be tempted by the 'dark side' in the future as well. Most of us can admit that we have fallen to tempation from time to time. We all generally know the difference between actions which are right or wrong. There are variations from person to person on certain things of course, but most of us tend to get along together until you introduce variables like politics and such.

The first question now is, where did this knowledge of values and morals come from? Well, a lot of people seem to believe it just comes out of thin air. As if you are born knowing right from wrong immediately. This is an extremely flawed idea in my opinion. Without influence from other humans at critical stages, a person would lack useful motor skills, communication ability, and so on. Basically, all one has to do is search for information on feral children. If they haven't been given proper care by a certain age, their abilities are limited to the point where, quite frankly, you would assume the subject was born with a severe mental illness. Our set of morals does not simply come from DNA. Certain factors in our personality may be encoded, but even 'survival instincts' are subordinate. A being may be born knowing that it needs things, but we're talking about very limited/non-existant knowledge about what it wants or how to get it. When a 'tamed' animal acts wild, we generally chalk it up to 'survival instincts', but doesn't that just mean it didn't know right from wrong? The lion was happy with it's tamer, but it didn't think about the consequences of biting him. A baby will drink from a bottle, but it has to be coaxed first. Locke's idea of tabula rasa leads me to believe the only reasonable answer is that our knowledge of right and wrong comes from our parents and society.

If all our knowledge comes from those who surround us, then where do they get it from? I speak english, and I will most likely never forget how. I would know how to go to english even if I didn't take all those classes on it throughout school. How would I know? Because my parents taught me how to speak it. How did they know how? Their parents, and then their parents, and so on. If I was born in Spain, I would most likely speak Spanish. If I was born anywhere else, I would most likely also be more fond of certain regional dishes, I'd probably watch different television shows, maybe enjoy different sports, and so on. The fact is, I was not born enjoying ice-hockey and disliking Sponge Bob. None of us grew up knowing what we would like and dislike for the rest of our lives. In fact, most of us have changed dramatically throughout our lives, based on our experiences. If I didn't know about TVs, I wouldn't watch them, and so I would have no knowledge about reality shows. If people around me only spoke French, I would never know the meaning of 'Hello.' My point is, every bit of our knowledge has a root. Morality is no exception.

Atheists tend to get rather annoyed when I tell them that right or wrong is based on religion. If anyone can find a better source, please inform me. The fact is, people who grow up in a Judea-Christian based society are going to have a set of rules based on examples from the Bible. Those living in an Islamic state are going to believe in rules from the Quran. If your country has a mix of early religions, then your idea of morality is most likely going to be based on a mixture of those. Get what I'm saying? Okay, now I'm told that a person's opinion isn't based on religion. The fact that you don't like what is considered right, does not make you special. If you think that abortion is moral, that doesn't mean you're somehow given a superior knowledge of right and wrong! If I think that ant killing is a horrible atrocity, you would just think I'm insane. Why? Because your idea of what is normal and not is based on what you have been exposed to over the years. If you were surrounded by people who run around naked, then you would probably believe that is just fine and dandy.

My point is, I am sick and tired of people believing they are superior simply because they have a different and more 'liberal' set of standards. Admit it, we are not that different just because of religion. Without religion, you would not know right from wrong. Just as how without English speakers, you wouldn't know the difference between the words 'right' and 'wrong'. Stop claiming that your ideas are somehow better than mine because you are an atheist and I am not. You cannot defend your immoral behavior simply by claiming that you were somehow gifted with a superior knowledge of right and wrong. Seriously, if this is going to be the way it is, we might as well just start running around like savages and animals. There is always going to be a small percentage of people who hate all things conservative and would rather change what is 'right' to what is 'wrong' because it is more convenient for them to explain their actions that way.

I suppose the truly sad thing is that the 10% of people who want change are always the loudest, and therefor most likely to get what they want. Those of us who generally keep to ourselves and try not to make life harder than it has to be, end up watching our way of life slowly slip away. Liberal values were great when it meant removing racism and sexism, but today it seems to have become extremely polluted. It has become all about appeasing the loudest tiny percentage. Forget the fact that most of the country does not support this and that, the majority will generally fall in line because we have to. We do not seem to notice the small things until it is too late. We are looking at the idea of a bizarro Nazi Germany. Of course, this is all the stuff of an entirely different journal entry. My point is, just because your ideas of 'right' are based on a minority opinion, does not make it superior. Stop acting like you are a victim because people do not agree with you.