Moral Consequences:
Morality has been a subject much on my mind most of my life. Of course right and wrong are front and center, but what always follows are the consequences of immoral behavior. Like most people I inherited a religion and believed in it when young much as a child believes in Santa Claus. For me, the more I got exposed to a wider world, a world so much more diverse and expansive than my own tunnel visioned existence, organized inherited religions began to fit in less and less. The questions which arose were rather basic. Why would God pass on his directions for moral living through inheritance? Why are some people born with so many more advantages than others? If God is personally involved in our lives why can such awful tragedies happen to some who are so good and moral? If one steps back and looks at the whole world as we can perceive it, one realizes human understanding is hopelessly limited. Why are we always trying to create a God that is on our level of comprehension, Who thinks like us, Who is constantly judging and either punishing or rewarding us? Why do we create so many silly ass rituals to prove our devotion to the Creator? Why do we feel a need to be so rigid about our religious beliefs? And the questions go on and on. For me, when the questions piled up past a certain critical level, it became time to rethink what morality and ethics really is, and what the consequences of doing wrong really are.
Whatever ethics really is, for it to be universal it can't be complicated, it can't require some sort of college degree, and it has to be universally applicable everywhere humans exist. Does God exist? If someone gives you a gift anonymously, the existence of the gift proves the existence of giver. So God exists or at least did exist. I suppose one could postulate he has since died. We know enough about the evolution of life on our planet to understand a good deal about the laws of evolution, how life is a continuum and has evolved over eons of time into more and more complicated organisms. Who created this evolutionary process? It certainly is no human creation and this non human creator I call God. It certainly is an awe inspiring process. There is no evidence God is ever tinkering with the process by negating the very laws which drive the process. On this basis I find it a bit irrational to think I can, through any kind of altered behavior on my part, get God to exempt me here and there from the laws of evolution. If I have terminal cancer I am going to die and God is not going to interfere. If I am plain looking, I am plain looking and God is not going to physically alter my appearance no matter how many rituals I go through or how often I praise God, etc. And it seems a bit egotistic to feel God guided a particular sperm to a particular egg so I could exist. The evolutionary process enabled me to exist, not by divine intervention, but by the laws of God's created evolutionary process. My whole life is governed by these laws, not by Divine intervention for me to pass a school test, score a touchdown on a team, fall in love with the right person, etc. I don't appreciate God less because he doesn't tinker with the laws he created to drive the evolutionary process.
Assuming the above is true, where does this leave ethics and morality in God's evolutionary process? Does this leave hedonism and selfishness as a behavior as good as any other? Is there really and right and wrong, or just immutable evolutionary laws which are always the deciding forces? Why should others count at all, we are all dead in the long run. The fault in this thinking lies in viewing evolution as a purely physical process. As this process evolved mental capacities also evolved. Of course an amoeba or frog doesn't have any concept of right and wrong. That does not mean humans do not have such a concept. And of course we do because we talk about right and wrong and lot. Right and wrong is a mental function which logically continues to evolve with the evolutionary process. Why would we postulate this particular mental function not be an evolving function? Right and wrong today may not be at the same level as right and wrong in earlier times. Slavery may have been considered right in the past, but today it is more universally considered wrong. There are myriad examples of things that were considered right in the past which are generally considered wrong today---child labor abuses, women's rights, ethnic rights, sexual rights, etc. Because of the nature of evolution, right and wrong is not an absolute, but an evolving concept.
Next we have to understand the nature of this mental process which determines right from wrong. It seems humans have an innate sense of right and wrong which is depicted in the Golden Rule---do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Perhaps it started off rather simply, a kind of "if you are kind to me I won't kill you". And then over time, it just keeps expanding. At some point you get: "Okay I am male and you are female but you can vote too."Or. "You are black and I am white but you can sit next to me on the bus". Today it may be reflected in "Okay, I can marry any adult of my choice so you can too". Right and wrong is evolving just like other aspects of evolution keep evolving.
But wait, what is the reward for doing right instead of doing wrong? Many religions have invented a Heaven, a reward after death. I say invented because this is not something for which we have any proof or even a logical basis. Neither can we dismiss it. After all, we can't conceive how life exists so how can be deny the possibility of some sort of life after death. But, one might say, "If there is no Heaven why should anyone make any effort to do right rather than wrong? " I suppose one could do right instead of wrong just to cover one's ass in case there is a Heaven. But it is also possible that doing right instead of wrong has it's own immediate reward in terms of personal contentment.
Personal contentment is the goal of any individual's life. I find (which does not make it a fact) that real personal contentment is achieved via living the Golden Rule. It seems to me that those who follow the Golden Rule end up contented----up to a point. If you are homeless, without food, without a safe environment, etc. then of course you cannot be contented. HOWEVER, the responsibility for this condition resides with others. In the evolutionary process there is no level playing field. For humans, bestowed genetically with mental acumen and a sense of ethics, it is ethical duty which is needed to level the playing field. OF COURSE we cannot level the playing field, but we can make it more level. There is no real reason why anyone on earth should go without food, have no home, and not live in a safe environment. It is the actions of some who make this impossible. These are the people who believe (they really do) that they have 'earned' their blessings and those without can do so the old fashioned way---"earn it". It makes little logical sense for the fastest runner in a race to tell those finishing way back in the pack, that they too could win races if they would just train like he/she does. Clearly being able to win races is a non essential part of life, but having food to eat, a home to live in, and a secure environment is another story.
I don't think one can really be content until others count as much as we ourselves do. Jesus and most other prophets from diverse religious sects all put sharing on the front burner. Those who have more need share with those who have less. Unfortunately, many people reduce this to simply those who have more need give a small portion of their excess to others. Sometimes the other is the Church itself which is notoriously an inefficient way to get any real help to those in need. The overhead for any particular church is very high. NO, the Golden Rule does not mean give a little of your excess. Arbitrarily, in my own mind, it means that you give until you are giving as much to others as you give to yourself. Every penny that you spend on yourself that is not a basic need ought to be matched by a penny given to others in need---in the most direct way possible. Since I have started doing this my level of contentment has risen in my life. Duty done is the genesis of contentment. Of course, the question arises----what about in your younger years when you are trying so hard to make a career work and need any excess to invest in building for your future? This seems a valid question. I think an early concept to master is that enough is as good as a feast. For example, one can spend $20,000 to get a decent car to get you from place to place, or one may really want a $40,000 car because well, because you just want the $40,000 car for one reason or another. And that extra $20,000 is all the extra money you really have to spend. Fine, so you buy a $30,000/yr car this time around and give $10,000 to charity. As your career progresses you may be able to afford the $40,000 car and give $20,000 to charity. It really boils down to contentment versus the 'rat race'. Have you ever known anyone competing in the 'rat race' to really be happy? I haven't.
I think the above principle is valid, but the specific application will vary from individual to individual. The next problem is what to do about building a nest egg in case you need it in the future? That is perfectly fine providing one accepts literally what the purpose of a nest egg is. It is okay to say one is not going to give every excess to the poor and not put some in a nest egg for health emergencies etc. in the future. BUT, the intent can't switch down the road. That is, when one dies that entire nest egg goes to charity, not to your kids or relatives etc. NOWHERE, in any religion of which I am aware, is it written that your obligation is not to those in need but to pass on wealth to your kids. The same principle applies: others mean as much as your own kids. If one thinks God finds their family a special favorite of God, this to me, is simply irrational and self serving. I cannot imagine on what basis God would single out ME and designate me special for any reason. This would really be a stretch and some sort or crazy perception on my part, or anyone else's part who would think that way about themselves.
We all know what invariably happens with these nest eggs. As the parent gets older the siblings all start considering how much of that nest egg they might get. I thought the American way for for individuals was to earn their own way in life, if they have the ability to do so. Of course if one of your children is handicapped, retarded or a cripple of some sort, they then become one of those 'others' in need. Most kids are not handicapped. Somehow, we have created a culture in which siblings think they have a right to any nest egg at the end. I have a nest egg, and I generate contentment from it knowing that it will go to those in need at the end. Modern day 'family values' is nothing more than self serving notions about genetic relationships, an excuse to let those in real need be left to suffer. More families end up not speaking to each other over inheritance matters than probably any other aspect of family life. GREED, writ large, shows---writ large---it's ugly head in these cases. The world is full of people who inherit large sums of money and then act like they 'earned it'. The wealth that one is fortunate enough, for whatever reason, to accumulate during one's life must, via the Golden Rule, be put back into the society from which it came.
At any rate, there are moral consequences here on earth, and they relate to our degree of contentment. One can be expansive in their outlook towards others or one can circle the wagons, and live their lives as one long 'us vs them', the us being some sort of genetic cabal. And many actually believe God, whatever they envision Him to be, is going to reward them for such behavior. That seems a stretch to me. To paraphrase Lincoln, "Let us have faith that doing right generates contentment, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."
