Old immorality / new morality

by behemot 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  behemot

  Today’s “established morality,” which condones premarital and extramarital sex as well as homosexuality, is what the Bible condemns as immorality. (w93 2/15 p. 13)

  … they endorse a “new” morality—actually nothing more than the old immorality under a new name. (w84 6/1 p. 4)

  It is a return to the age-old immorality, but disguised and sugarcoated as “the new morality.” (g79 4/22 p. 10)

  As these quotes show, JWs love to stress that what was once perceived as “immoral” has now become “moral”. They obviously view such a development as a sign of times getting harder and the end of the system getting closer.

  This estimation just shows how limited their view of “morality” is. They narrow it down to the sexual sphere. In fact, there are many areas where just the opposite has happened, areas where what the public opinion once perceived as “moral” and “normal” is now perceived as “immoral”: I’m thinking about slavery, exploitation of child labour, torture, mistreatment of animals, and so forth.

  I’m not saying that these things no longer exist. Unfortunately they still do. But today they are censured, condemned and fought against, while in the past they were just the norm.

  In all these respects, mankind is, in my opinion, progressing toward a deeper sensitivity and a higher degree of compassion for other living beings; in fact, toward a higher standard of “morality”, which of course runs counter to what JWs expect and look forward to, hence they just ignore it.

  Behemot
• 

  Narkissos

  I'm not sure I would qualify that as "progress" but the lines of morality are moving indeed.

  And it's sort of fun to see "old morality" finding itself on the "wrong" side (e.g. homophobia).
• 

  behemot

  Hi Narkissos,

  good talking to you again.

  Just adding that I was inspired to make this post by reading this thought-provoking article:

  http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

  Behemot
• 

  hamilcarr

  In all these respects, mankind is, in my opinion, progressing toward a deeper sensitivity and a higher degree of compassion for other living beings; in fact, toward a higher standard of “morality”,

  Comparing the standards of 19th century Victorian "strictly Biblical" morality and current "double standards" LDS or JW morality to modern "liberal" sexual morality, I think we can genuinely talk about progress. A societal permission for extramarital sexuality or homosexuality has obviously not led to promiscuity or social dysfunction.
• 

  Narkissos

  Interesting article.

  But the evolution of sensibility is only one feature in the overall economy of violence. We don't like the sight of violence -- except perhaps under the excuse of fiction. We don't want to hear about it -- except as reported in history and news, which trigger our indignation and validate our sense of moral superiority. Basically we don't want to think of it as ours. As a result we have moved it away from the experience of the average citizen and delegated it to "professionals," "specialists" whose moral responsibility is diluted in impersonal institutions, technology and protocols.

  Most city dwellers would cringe at the idea of killing a rabbit, a chicken or a lamb; they just don't think about that when they buy meat (especially when it is industrially produced and transformed). The idea of "clean" war depends on the same principle.

  The Assyrians of old with their gruesome, graphic cruelty (which was also a part of psychological warfare, intended to scare the enemies and objectively limiting the number of actual casualties) might have been horrified by the technological mass killing of 20th-century wars...

  The rise of our moral sensibility paradoxically coincides with the rise of our global (potential and actual) harmfulness to life, including ours. We may end as utterly compassionate destroyers...
• 

  hamilcarr

  If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million.
• 

  Narkissos

  hamilcarr:

  Structure!

  The tribal structure which rises the toll of war at a local level also limits its scope. Modern nations and empires have concentrated massive killing on geographically limited frontlines and targets. If we see this as progress (provided we keep the potential for destruction in the atomic age out of the account) it has little to do with morality...

  Morality is not the issue I'm afraid. Did any human group ever regard itself as immoral? We are better, of course -- as ever. It's part of that we-thing. If we can equate we with "mankind" we'll be better than ever, till we choke in our own goodness...
• 

  WTWizard

  True, they are too narrow about morality. I always thought of immorality as lying, cheating, and stealing (the opposite of honesty). They have it tied strictly to sex.

  Now, the true new morality. Any volitional act that is good for self or society is moral, regardless of scope. Any volitional act that is bad for self or society, regardless of what category it falls under, is immoral. Which makes it as immoral to go around knocking on doors trying to get everyone to waste all their time as any other immorality.