Blog 7 -- 2/24/14

It was suggested during today’s discussion, and I am sure Nietzsche would agree, that good for good’s sake is “better” than good for God’s sake. Now, if we think back to our example on whether or not there exists such a thing as a selfless act, we seemed to arrive at the conclusion that in the end the motive wasn’t important. How is this instance any different? I’m going to be completely honest: I am quite certain that if there existed no God for me to subscribe to, I would renounce a fair share of what some may consider to be the ethical nature of my being (sorry Kierkegaard, not your Ethical). Frankly, I despise my so-called duties to humanity insomuch that I would find no reason to maintain them in the absence of my god-figure, for whom I abide by such expectations. It just so happens that the gentleman who articulated the aforementioned conclusion also responded to those who think as I do. His assertion (more or less): If the removal of religious doctrine gives way to one that is immoral, then the individual was not moral from the outset. I have no quarrel with this. Why? Because I know first-hand that for some, myself included, morality has always been traced back to religion. For this type of person, there is no reconceptualization of morality, what has been will always be. One might compare this conceptual framework’s trajectory to that of learning a language: After about age seven, it becomes exponentially more difficult to learn a new language. Likewise, and more often than not, these ideas are instilled in the religious demographic at an early age, a critical period in life when fundamental teachings play a disproportionately large role in dictating the philosophical journey of an individual’s life. While I have digressed to a degree, the point I am trying to make is all the more evident: If such a large proportion of the human population relies on religious teaching for their morality, and the outcome of a good for good’s sake or God’s sake is the same, why is good for good’s sake better (if in fact eliminating good for God’s sake has the potential to result in no good at all)? Further yet, does it matter?

Yours Tru.ly