Erwin wrote:

I include this whole evaluative tendency under the heading of “morality,” and the moral layer of narration is probably the most pernicious of all, since if you manage to let go of the idea of what you “should” be doing, then all you really have to go on is what you are naturally inclined to do, and that’s paying attention to reality right there. For this reason I consider any religion or spiritual path whatsoever that contains a moral element to be wholly obnoxious and entirely counterproductive.

alectrum replied:

I can see where you’re coming from with this, but religious and spiritual paths are not only for philosophical thinkers that can aprehend your line of thinking. Many children and young people are educated in a religious or spiritual way, or even a non-spiritual one that emphasises moral values such as Humanism.

They certainly are. I consider such things to be wholly obnoxious and entirely counterproductive.

This education doesn’t happen by ramming religious texts down the throats of youngters but by asking them to consider and think about their actions and the actions of others through real life experiences and examples.

I don’t think it’s quite a simple as this. If it was just a question of “asking them to consider and think about their actions” then it would be one thing, but in practice that consideration is almost always a prelude to the conclusion “therefore don’t do that.” There is an underlying morality that is being pushed in such education.

They are free to throw of these values as they grow to adulthood and adopt other ways of thinking.

They certainly are. Education in any form can never guarantee that the subject will completely and eternally accept the teaching.

If all religions etc threw off the moral element of their docterines that you consider counterproductive, do you think more children would be raised as better human beings?

If so, why?

The problem with this question is that if there is no “moral element” then there can be no standard against which “better human beings” could be assessed. In the absence of moral elements, the concept of “better human beings” becomes nonsensical, because the latter is itself a moral judgment. Personally, since I deny the existence of objective moral qualities, I consider the phrase “better human being” to be always and inevitably meaningless, and I therefore think that you have asked a non-question.

However, I’ll give your question the answer that you were probably looking for by rephrasing it as “if all religions etc threw off the moral element … do you think more children would be raised as better human beings, ‘better human beings’ being defined in terms of the particular morality being pushed.”

I think the answer to this is “yes,” for the simple reason that people do not make what I would describe as “useful” moral judgments as a result of the system of morality that they have been taught. For instance, I’m assuming that you do not regularly indulge in mass random killings as you are walking down the street. Do you think that you refrain from such random killings because you have been taught in a classroom that “random killing is wrong,” because you are just the type of person who is inherently not inclined towards random murder, because you know that it is overwhelmingly likely that you will be severely punished for doing so, or because you recognise it would be much harder for you to get the cooperation you desire from others if you make a habit of randomly killing people? If it is either of the latter three options, then your restraint does not arise from your “moral education,” but from something else.

If we take Christianity as an example, and imagine that the “moral element of their doctrines” arises from the Bible. If people actually did base their moral judgments on these teachings, then according to your humanistic standards they would be some of the most immoral people you would ever meet, since the actual morality promoted in the Bible is so despicably heinous when measured against a humanistic standard. The Bible promotes stoning adultresses, for instance, but most people today would consider such an act to be intensely immoral. This fact alone demonstrates conclusively that the vast majority of Christians at least do not base their moral judgments on the moral teachings of their religion. This being the case, removing that element would have no negative impact on moral behaviour, and by discouraging some of the wackos who actually would want a Biblical system of justice it would actually improve moral behaviour.

In a more mundane sense, the fact that speeding and recreational drug use is illegal in many western societies – and, by implication, considered to be “wrong” by those societies – does not inhibit millions of people from indulging in such activities. Whatever it is that determines the moral judgments people make, it’s clearly not the “moral rules” that they have been taught. Deliberately obscuring what it actually is that determines their moral judgments is hardly going to be conducive to “improving moral behaviour.”

The Christian doctrine of humanity is that humans are fundamentally evil and worthless, and that if they were not kept in line by some sort of divine dictator with the power to mete out eternal punishments then they would be constantly committing what are commonly regarded as “evil” acts. I dispute this utterly. Without restriction of any kind, people will tend to do the things that they are naturally inclined to do, which in the first instance means satisfying their basic needs, and in the second instance means satisfying their “higher needs,” such as satisfying a natural curiosity, or appreciating beauty, or whatever else you want to mention.

Is it possible that some people will be “naturally inclined” towards acts that you would describe as “evil”? Certainly, but as I have pseudo-demonstrated I do not consider that these people would be inhibited from following through on those inclinations by a moral education, and that such a moral education would do essentially nothing towards encouraging such an inhibition.

In fact, being taught that something you are naturally inclined to do is “wrong” may well increase the likelihood of it being realised, since it will create a conflict. Without such a conflict, sheer practicality (such as the desire to avoid punishment, or the practical necessity of cooperation being usually required for survival) may well be enough in itself to inhibit such actions.

Furthermore, I consider that a belief in morality is far more likely to result in what would commonly be described as “evil acts” than an absence of such a belief. We can cite the persecution of homosexuals and witches for instance, all of which require the belief that “homosexuality and witchcraft are wrong.” In the absence of such a moral belief, there is no justification for such persecution. The greatest of all of what you would describe as “evils” can only arise from idealism, which is inseparable from morality. Without a strong conviction that something is “right,” the motivation to commit heinous acts in the cause of furthering that something just isn’t going to be present. Of course, justification is not always required for persecution, but we can assume that if we were to remove justification then its frequency would at least lessen. I think that a belief in morality is far more likely to lead to “evil acts” than an absence of such a belief, because in the absence of such a belief most of the motivation for oppressing others disappears, and the whole question comes down to personal interest, and if other people had no motivation for oppressing you either then I predict that the frequency with which personal interests would conflict would be far less great than it currently is.

In short, I think that “moral education” just doesn’t do what it says on the tin. I dispute that a “sense of right and wrong” is the primary or even a particularly significant factor in restraining people from committing what you would describe as “evil acts” and I assert that a “sense of right and wrong” can in fact frequently be the direct cause of what you would describe as “evil acts.” For this reason, I would tend towards supporting the hypothesis that refraining from indoctrinating children into believing in objective moral qualities would result in them exhibiting what you would describe as “more moral behaviour.” I do not think that a “sense of right and wrong” is particularly relevant to observed moral behaviour, and I therefore think that indoctrinating children into believing that it is is unlikely to be conducive to them exhibiting “better moral behaviour,” and will more likely be conducive to them exhibiting “worse moral behaviour.” I do not think that teaching children such a fundamentally mistaken and bizarre theory of the universe is either theoretically or practically wise.

What I think would be far more productive to teach is the idea that although all actions are morally neutral, people wish to protect themselves from harm, so they group together to apprehend and either prevent or punish people who try to do so. It is simply not necessary to encourage people to believe that causing harm is somehow “morally wrong” in order to do this, and I don’t think teaching such a belief does anything towards preventing people from causing harm, as I have said. Neither does abandoning a belief in morality preclude you from such apprehension and punishment, since these latter two actions are also morally neutral and can be indulged in at will. The whole thing can be boiled down to practical expediency.

If you want to encourage a world in which people act more “morally” according to your standard, then I do not think that teaching children to believe in fairy stories about morality will accomplish this. In fact, as I have explained, I think it will discourage it. Teaching people false fables about the nature of the universe is highly unlikely to be productive.