I ate dinner with the monks this evening; as with breakfast, we didn't talk, but unlike breakfast, there was audio accompaniment: an audiobook that seemed to be about the lives and shenanigans of certain Italian architects-- the stories behind the construction of various European cathedrals-- read by some very smooth-sounding Brit. We ate in silence and listened; the funnier anecdotes provoked a good bit of laughter among the brothers, and the audiobook reminded us that human behavior hasn't really changed all that much over the centuries. We understand all too well the petty jealousies that drove the artists of centuries ago to write nasty letters, issue small-minded critiques, and strive to make each other look bad in the public eye. Has the human situation improved all that much?
There are good arguments to be made on both sides. Steven Pinker, for one, is no theist but he does think humanity as a whole has made great moral progress. Believers will, of course, point in many cases to the founders of their traditions (assuming we're talking about traditions with distinct founders) and say, "This person changed the world," whether it's Jesus opening the gates of Heaven or the Buddha setting the Wheel of the Law into motion. Religious folks and Pinker aren't saying the same thing, to be sure, but they do seem to share a certain degree of optimism about humanity's future.
At the same time, we still have murder, war, mugging, theft, and other forms of cruelty, deceit, and mayhem. None of this has been eliminated, and at least on the emotional level, we can relate to both perpetrators and victims who find themselves involved, in some capacity or other, in the cycle of suffering. It was a question we were asked in a theology class in grad school: since Jesus' departure, has the world improved? I know my father says, "Cats are cats and dogs are dogs." I don't think he's implying that the situation will never change, but he does seem-- perhaps rightly-- to be making an observation about human history, biology, and psychology.
What do you think? The more things change, the more they stay the same? Or do you see a steady, "upward" moral progress, as Pinker does?
Anyway, dinner found me once again piling on the food. The monks didn't say anything about my crass self-indulgence (they were, in fact, quite friendly), which kept me from feeling too guilty.
_
Marathon
12 years ago
2 comments:
I don't know about "steady" upward progress, but I think we can't deny that there HAS been progress.
Example A would be, ironically, war. We've made "rules" to war that are somewhat better than "the winners get to say whatever they want is okay".
For example, first aid units aren't supposed to be fired upon, and likewise armies aren't supposed to utilize that fact to hide fighting units. POWs are supposed to be fed and given basic survival necessities.
It seems strange to say, but a global society which can set up "rules of war" and then try to stick to them is either making at least a little moral progress, or is so hopelessly stupid and neurotic that there's zero hope for the society.
(You get to pick which one is true.)
Example 2 would be basic human rights. A few hundred years ago, most or all of the world considered it "okay" to "own" other humans as slaves or indentured servants.
While there's still slavery, the reality is that pretty much all of the Western, modern, industrialized world rejects slavery; and while there is still some work to be done in terms of indentured service (some of the massive factory/cities in China, for example) most of the world also rejects that form of labor.
A few hundred years ago, most nations took it for granted that only landowning males had the right to vote (assuming they voted at all). Now pretty much all of Europe, all of North and South America, and much of the rest of the world take it for granted that all people are free to vote; what's more, most of those places also have freedom of speech in one form or another.
I think that we're definitely making moral progress. I would hesitate to put the credit at religion's feet, though; nearly all of today's religions existed a few (or several) hundred years ago with more or less the same sets of base beliefs as today.
What's changed? Cultural attitudes more than religions. Religions seem to lag behind most social changes, or so I perceive.
This is very belated--I've been camping for awhile and out of Internet range--but what the heck--at least Kevin will see it. :-)
Paul makes good points. While counterpoints could be made, instead I want to comment on his last point.
The question then becomes, whence the change in cultural attitudes? Arguably, moral ideas are incubated in religions, and spread from there into cultural attitudes and institutions (including both religious and other institutions). Religions tend to generate a mixed bag of moral ideas and precepts, but that mixed bag does include some of our best. Even if not put into practice particularly well, the ideas are passed along for future generations to latch onto and act on. With religion becoming a less universal phenomenon, other cultural institutions and processes may have taken on this function also (e.g., public schools)--but so far, religion seems to still be performing it.
Post a Comment