Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Do-gooders can become the worst cheats?

From the MSNBC web site … thanks R.

Do-gooders can become the worst cheats; Study: Sense of moral superiority might lead to rationalizing bad behavior, by Jeanna Bryner.

Morally upstanding people are the do-gooders of society, right? Actually, a new study finds that a sense of moral superiority can lead to unethical acts, such as cheating. In fact, some of the best do-gooders can become the worst cheats.

24 comments:

John Manzo said...

Well, I think that there are 'do-gooders,' people who are trying to live upstanding lives, and there are self-righteous people. Trying to live a 'good life,' I would think, is a good thing. Trying to impose your personal values on others is not.

Anonymous said...

We have gotten to the point in our society and in this study where we blur the definition of the terms.

Morality and Ethics are not synonymous. Morality deals with “what is” and ethics deals with “what ought to be”

What is Right? What is wrong? - The ethical implications of postmodernism is that there is no basis for ethical standards or ethical language.

Plato once asked the question: "Is an act right because God said it, or did God know it was right and told us about it?"

His laws are an expression of His nature

We have blurred the issues and we commonly use statistical ethics where our culture determines ethics through normalcy and survey data.

What one considers moral, another may not, but ethics (what ought to be) should be the same if there is a solid foundation.

Without a foundation (as in post-modernism), “anything goes”!

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Without a foundation (as in post-modernism), “anything goes”!

Not true. What goes is what is collaboratively agreed upon as best for the collective involved. The common good of the collective, including both Christians and non-Christians, is the foundation.

The argument comes when one side says that honoring its ideas about the source of the "good" is more important than both working together to find that common good and the collective's machinations for doing so.

Anonymous said...

So 51% of anything makes something moral or worse yet ethical.

I don't think so!

John Manzo said...

I used to teach college ethics and I have never heard morality and ethics being defined as different from each other. Morality is often seen as how those ethical codes are lived out in day to day life, but morality is built upon ethical codes.

Ethics is what 'ought' to be.

It's often common defined as a three step process:

What a person ought to do.

What a person ought not do.

What a person may either do or not do.

But theories of ethics abound and they are not one in the same.

Good ethical thought leads to what is considered to be the common good and the common good is often defined in different ways by different people.

Even among Christians there are distinct differences.

Take abortion.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that abortion is never permissible under any circumstances. It is, my Roman Catholic ethical teaching, intrinsically evil. The only possible exception to this rule is the case of an indirect abortion where a fallopian tube is removed from a woman in the case of a tubal pregnancy. That 'indirect' abortion is permissible.

Abortion, from a Roman Catholic perspective, is an always and everywhere kind of thing.

In most perspectives of Christian ethics with tightly defined morality on this, abortion is considered to be immoral unless the mother's life is in danger.

Moving a bit further down the line, abortion is considered to be immoral unless the mother's life or 'well being,' is in danger. The issue here becomes how does one define 'well being?' Are we talking paralysis, brain damage, psychological trauma? A phrase like 'well being' makes the subject a lot more complex.

Of course, moving on down the line, you have people who are totally pro-choice. It is totally up to the choice of the mother.

In the study of ethics, these are all moral norms, depending on who one reads.

From the vantage point of Christianity, all of these positions have representation as there are no direct references to abortion in the Bible. Some people gamely and lamely try to use Jeremiah 1 and Psalm 139 as 'proof texts,' but they are not.

Divorce and remarriage is another delightful issue amongst Christians.

The Roman Catholic Church is not opposed to divorce as is commonly thought. The Roman Catholic Church's issue isn't with the divorce, but it's the divorce and remarriage. They cite Jesus who clearly stated a ban on divorce and marrying another.

But Christian Churches do weddings for divorced people all the time.

The Roman Catholic Church grants annulments if a couple can demonstrate that either one of the parties entered into the marriage either not in good faith or lacking the maturity they are granted the annulment and allowed to remarry.

Some churches have criteria that they set in place to allow or disallow remarriage.

Most mainline Protestant Churches either being very aware or not aware of the Petrine principle of 'binding and loosing,' essentially 'loose' the first marriage and do the remarriage.

So, what is the standing principle?

I also think that we need to be cautious with using phrases like 'post-modernism.' Like the tired words, 'liberal' and 'conservative' it has come to mean whatever the user of the word wants it to mean.

I don't think our current age lacks a foundation. Not in the least! Actually, I think that we are dealing with a society that is ready and willing to deal with complex issues in complex ways. Studying ethics and applied ethics is a complex subject and ought not be simplified.

I agree with Bluegill. The goal is always the common good and the common good ought to be the foundation. The approach to the common good is always subject to debate.

John Manzo said...

Why is it:

That I never get the $%$%@ word verification right the first time? Grr.

Anonymous said...

In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.

Ethics, by definition, is a major branch of philosophy, that encompasses right conduct and good living.

It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong.

Your response is a classic example of moral relativism in the post-modernist thinking where we cannot know truth.

When the common good means the elderly are no longer useful, or babies with mental retardation, birth defects etc. are not a benefit to the common good, it still would not be ethical to euthanize them.

We can know these things even if the common good doesn’t agree.

John Manzo said...

Wow. Post modern relativism.

For one, this is a cliche and I'm weary of cliches and labels.

Secondly, I'm not. This is called philosophical ethics. The problem with ethics is the same problem we have with Christianity right now. Too many people decreeing that they know the truth and, I daresay, that is frightening to me. God we are not. I do believe that there is absolute truth----but I also believe that human beings are way too fallible and limited to know or understand absolute truth. To say that we mortals can grasp absolute truth is, frankly, to diminish God. Much of what passes for Christianity these days views God more as a 'good buddy' than having a sense of awe and mystery.

I'm not sure how or where you are making the leap onto euthanasia as the 'common good.' The Nazis tried that one already and I know of know person of reason who even comes close to that way of thinking.

Highwayman said...

Roger,

PLEASE come over and take the batterys out of my wireless keyboard before my fingers override my good sense!

By the way JM, the more I read from you, the better I like you.

B.W. Smith said...

HB, the vein of thought that so many people lump together as "post-modernism" is wide and diverse. I think, to be fair, you should be more specific in your criticism.

Having read a lot of so-called "postmodern" philosophy, I agree with JM that "post-modern relativism" is a cliche. I can't think of any "post modern" thinkers I've read who argue relativism. Most of them are concerned with deconstructing established truths and making us suspicious of bold truth claims, yes, but not with embracing relativism.

Serious related question: I think I am correct in stating that you believe all "worldviews" ultimately come down to a question of faith. Isn't that a form of relativism?

Anonymous said...

To begin, I did not coin a cliché of “post-modern relativism.” I stated moral relativism in the post-modernist thinking.

So let’s define terms:

Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

Postmodernism refers to a cultural, intellectual, or artistic state lacking a clear central hierarchy or organizing principle and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, diversity, and interconnectedness or interreferentiality.

So as Brandon says, let deconstruct the truth of what JM stated.

JM stated “The problem with ethics is the same problem we have with Christianity right now. Too many people decreeing that they know the truth.”

He also said “Good ethical thought leads to what is considered to be the common good and the common good is often defined in different ways by different people.” “Even among Christians there are distinct differences.”

And one further comment is:

“I do believe that there is absolute truth----but I also believe that human beings are way too fallible and limited to know or understand absolute truth.”,

So here’s the problem.

JM believes there is an absolute truth but doesn’t think we have a way of knowing it and because so many people see things differently, including Christians, it appears to justify his belief.

Just because Man puts his “stink” on God, does not undermine God’s truth claims that He revealed to us through His creation and through His word.

The question then remains:

What is Truth and how do we know it?

How do you know it?

Without an unchanging foundation, truth becomes relative and is clearly shown in your responses.

Iamhoosier said...

HB,
Your last sentence(8am)is where my differences with you come in.

To me, that sentence clearly shows your black & white personality, philosophy, or whatever. You "have" to have that rock solid foundation and you will let nothing shake it. If someones personality, philosophy, etc does not have what you consider an unchanging foundation, you reject it, almost out of hand. You are disagreeing with a man whose speciality is this area. That does not mean that John is right. I don't remember you ever admitting error or even doubt on the blogs, no matter the subject or it's relative importance.

I should just stay out of this. I can't discuss this on as high a level as you, John or Brandon. I do enjoy reading all of your comments, so please keep at it.

Anonymous said...

IAM,

The questions posed are open to everyone.

What is Truth and how do we know it?

How do you know it?

John Manzo said...

Classic theology has always stated that there is absolute truth and that people are limited in their comprehension of God and God's truth. In recent years, some Evangelical revisionist theology has stated this to be untrue. I absolutely disagree.

To me, there has been an insight on this. I've read a lot of Thomas Merton. Merton was a person who lived his life in absolute devotion to God. A Trappist monk, a hermit, a person who spent at least three hours a day in prayer. The closer he got to God, the more mysterious God became.

Last January when I was at that monastery for a week, conversations with the monks indicated exactly the same thing. The closer we get to God, the more transcendent and mysterious God becomes.

I stand by this absolutely.

I believe that there is absolute truth and I also believe that human beings are incapable of grasping it.

Randy said...

The Bible tells us, HB, that while we might apprehend God, we cannot comprehend God. To assert otherwise is to commit the original sin.

That belief that we can become as God is what separates the Mormons from traditional Christianity. The preachers of the "Prosperity" gospel separate themselves from traditional Christianity. And no matter how you cast your rhetorical tone, yours is what separates your fundamentalism from sound Christian doctrine.

What you preach is easy to teach in Sunday School. It is a seemingly reliable tool with which to arm your children, but children grow, and not necessarily away from God. Sending your children out armed with your world view is akin to Donald Rumsfeld sending our troops to Iraq in under-armored Humvees.

Through a glass darkly is not merely great Elizabethan poetry.

Iamhoosier said...

John,
Would your last sentence(10:02am) be an indicator of why you are more liber.., no wait, less conserv.., nah,... of why you may allow for more variance, than some?

I'm trying learn here, so please don't hestitate to correct me.

Mark

Unknown said...

My belief is that the "truth" could care less whether you believe in it or not. The truth is what it is and stands alone.
It is only when I apply my perceptions, my experiences, and my reality do I accept or reject truth.
Does this mean I am right or wrong in regards to the truth? I think it depends.
There are certain truths that we all know to be true. Gravity is one of the truths that we all can agree. What goes up must come down. We just accept it as is.
When morality and/or ethics show up in the mix, things tend to be more complicated. For me, part of my moral compass is what BG talked about in terms of the collective good. Like BW, I have had plenty of religious experiences. Due to many of these experiences, I am more anit-God now than I ever have been. By making that statement, I am already standing in judgment from some of you. Therefore, the virtual line that has been drawn by others already has predetermined the differences in our "truths," if you will.

Anonymous said...

Randy and the others seem to never want to answer the questions.

What is Truth?

Randy's comments And no matter how you cast your rhetorical tone, yours is what separates your fundamentalism from sound Christian doctrine.

What is Sound Christian Doctrine that you boldly state my rhetorical tone contradicts and where is your source of truth in this?

Christopher D said...

In my humble opinion, "truth" is completely subjective. what may well be "truth" for one person, does not hold the same for another person due to religious beliefs, upbringing, education, or personal experience.
Look at the differences regarding God between christians, Jews, and Muslims, All the same God, but three different "truths".
Truth is what we as individuals CHOOSE to accept.

John Manzo said...

IAM,

Part of the reason I don't like using the liberal or the conservative words is just this. They pigeonhole and try to simplify complexity. Why do I allow or tolerate variance. In my life I have two basic beliefs. There is a God and I am not God.

Interesting note about truth and the question, "What is truth?"

The question is posed by Pilate to Jesus in John's Gospel. In John there are a series of what are called "I Am Statements, which are actually a reference to YHWH's self definition of being, "I am." They are, in essence, divine statements made by Jesus about who and what he is.

As a result, a sentence like, "I am the resurrection and the life," is a statement that he, personally, has the power over death. Resurrection is not a concept, it is, to use the Latin, within the Persona Christi, the person of Christ. Teilhard de Chardin, a French philosopher/theologian, would state that Jesus is referencing the Cosmic Christ, the one who lives and reigns now.

"I am the Good Shepherd," is a statement that he, personally, is the Good Shepherd."

"I am the way, the truth, and the life," is a statement that he, the Cosmic Christ, God, if you will, is the way, the truth, and the life."

John is making Pilate's statement amazingly ironic. Pilate is approaching "truth" as a concept, whereas John has pointed out that "Truth" is not a concept, but a person.

As a result, Pilate's question, "What is truth, is being asked to Truth Himself.

I'm beginning to realize why I had to take so many of those systematic theology courses...

Now, after that erudite exposition, I will be once again vanquished into trying to get through word verification on this site.

Iamhoosier said...

I understand about the labels. Feel the same way, just a small attempt at humor on my part.

When it comes to "truth" or "Truth", I am reminded of a story my father told me:

Son, there are only two economists who totally understand the world economy and they disagree.

Anonymous said...

JM
Interesting you should bring this up because many people sometimes debate on why exactly Jesus came.

And when Jesus was giving the "good confession" before Pilate, he was asked a question and Jesus gave the very clear answer as to why he came.

John 18:37 "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

This is one of the clearest and most objective statements that Jesus made about the reason He came into the world.

This statement doesn't override the others, but actually helps clarify many of them as in 1 John 3:8, when we are told that Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil.

When Jesus said that He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword, we understand that it is not a worldly sword that He is referring to. The Scripture makes reference over and over again to the sword being the Word of God (Eph 6:17), which in Hebrews 4:12 reiterates that it divides (" For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." )

This reinforces what Jesus said about coming for judgment that the blind should see (John 9:39), coming as a light (John 12:46), came to preach (Mark 1:38), came to give us understanding so that we would know him who is true (1 John 5:20), and so on.

There are more than 20 other examples of where Jesus says he is telling the truth about something in particular.

Truth matters!

John Manzo said...

I'm tired of maintaining this 'debate' if you will. HB, you are way over-simplifying Christology. The argument, frankly, diminishes Christ dramatically and makes it appear that Jesus had an ideological agenda. Nice thought, but no one can really do that. The fact that one sees things this simply and in black and white does not make them so.

And now I'm off to the word verification trap...
But, alas, I'm tired of this bickering. I've read and experienced way too much to come close to agreeing with you.

So, on that note, I'm done with the conversation and simply wishing all a Happy Thanksgiving.

G Coyle said...

thanks everyone, that was exhausting to read, but interesting discussion.