This Q on Y/A on a Restricted God may be of some interest to you
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApBj_6SzT_0uyDKaPYBmiFHsy6IX?qid=20060822193746AAMbVNv
Sairam
2007-04-13 04:23:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Indra 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you are a bit over extending. Take a breath. You've made a lot of claims, and not in an entirely clear way.
What I think you're trying to get at is the morally relativistic nature of modern society. The term zeitgeist is meant as a referent, a term describing reality not prescribing how things should be. It is not to be understood in the post-modernist view of relativistic morality, even though it seems like it. Zeitgeist is an acknowledgement that morality has changed over time and over the course of the evolution of human society. Ancient progenators of modern Abrahamic religions, the Hebrew people of Isreal, proscribed animal sacrifice to forgive sins and acceptence of slavery. To say that this has not changed, and that one who still draws on their [ancient Hebrews] intellectual tradition and does not view this as horrible is to be blind to reality. Zeitgeist is not saying that moral relativism is good, it it saying that what we accept as a people evolves over time, and the difference I think is stark. Where as moral relativism allows for anything, Zeitgeist draws on the experience of ourselves, our past, and our values to determine a moral structure.
I think what you object to is that as we move farther and farther into a rationalistic society, we have to rely more an d more on the Zeitgeist to determine our morality. We as a people no longer view any religion as an absolute moral arbiter, hence some people (wrongly) draw the conclusion that if there is nothing dictated in religion to draw our morality from, then there is no way to say that something is objectively moral. Here, though, is where they are wrong.
Morality is not a set of dictums. It is a decision by society, based on collective experience and evolution of thought about conduct. What was ok 200 years ago, whether it be slavery or the subjigation of women, is not ok today. We've learned and our morality has evolved. This is the Zeitgeist of our day. It is not relativistic, because we know that denying someone freedom based on race or sex is wrong, objectively. Our culture has evolved and made that decision.
What it seems you are having a problem with is that we are in a transitory phase in Western morality. We've experienced the horriffic attrocities at the hands of dogmatic religion, and at the hands of dogmatic politics. Whether it be protestants killing catholics, Sunni killing Shi'ia, or Communists killing civlians, each group has killed because of dogmatic belief in a cause. As we become more rational, we don't have the great narritives of religions, or of Communism to guide us on what is right or wrong. All that is left is the Zeitgeist, what we as a society have decided to say is good and bad.
I think, personally, that this is a step in the right direction. If we continue to evolve our morality as we are, we will move into a more and more peaceful society because we will base it off of reason instead of dogma. Without the metaphorical other to posit, "us" and "them" diachiotimies will begin to seem less and less meaningful. It is good to note that humanity as a race has moved more and more towards valuing freedom as a fundamental right. There will always be those who rally against that in the name of religion, political views, or any other number of dogma's, but we as a society continue (assuming we don't make a stupid decision and blow ourselves up with nukes), and the Zeitgeist defines more and more what we as a people value.
Don't lose heart.
2007-04-13 11:33:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
God may sit and stand, or run and walk at the same time. Why can't we? We are his creations after all.
2007-04-13 12:36:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by sunscour 4
·
0⤊
0⤋