posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 03:40 PM
The Domain of Morality Illustrates Flaw of Religious Nepotism and Nepotistic Religiousness.
It sounds more complicated than it is. Let’s take a good look at this little sentence.
The Domain of Morality itself is the current accepted standardization of opinion. It is simply a scale that is arranged in what we would consider an
“atypical political right/left” scenario thusly:
Harm/Care Fairness/Justice Ingroup/Loyalty Authority/Respect Purity/Sanctity
There are many more ill defined morals in our modern society from ancient times. Ideas like the sanctity or purity of places, people or objects.
Automatic respect or reverence for authority figures is still expected from most human citizenry. Ideas of class, race or kin being of some worth or
relevance to anything are all still prevalent. In fact, we use this standard of Fairness, Harm, Ingroup, Authority, Purity as the measuring stick of
our sociological or moral makeup. It’s important that we understand the categories of this moral scale. This scale has been in development for
hundreds of years and those who wish to follow it’s history should also look up David Hume, Lawrence Kohlberg and Elliot Turiel.
The five categories are the Definition of the Domain of Morality by Elliot Turiel. They are referred to as the “Foundations of Morality.” To be
most concerned with a particular single branch or group of branches points to your morality. The stronger the assignation of importance to the
beginning of the list, the more left leaning, liberal, democratic, etc. you are. You are a two foundation person. The more importance you assign to
the latter three the more right leaning, conservative, authoritative, etc. you are.
I’m sure we can agree that the utilization of judgement where Fairness and Harm are the standards is much more logical and productive than using
the considerations of Ingroup, Authority or Purity. In fact, the latter three paradigms should be almost entirely dismissed, most are antiquated and
Ingroup leads to nepotism, racism, classism. How many of us have helped a friend do something illogical? Authority is weighed well by many still,
despite murderous cops, self-serving politicians, and abusive priests. Purity doesn’t refer to the wholeness or correctness of something, but it’s
Questions of Sanctity are of value. The Dome of the Rock is one of the most traveled to places on the planet. It is a manmade structure where people
come to pay homage to a meteorite. Were they able to, the pilgrims could pick up any rock build a temple around it and assign the same purity to it.
They can’t because they’ve been instructed that this rock is special and deservedly so. In fairness, this last point is why I say we should all
but dismiss Ingroup, Authority and in this case, Purity considerations, for what if I am wrong and someday an irrefutable force proves to me that the
rock is ‘special.’ Furthermore, Ingroup facilitates family responsibility and cultural comfort which are not unhealthy. There is also Authority in
the Universe as there is Purity, I just haven’t found either yet. I know they exist because their opposites are so prevalent. (I wish to point out,
just for clarity, that my singling out of any one religion, God, artifact or geographic location are for illustrative purposes only.)
It seems, therefore, that Nature is left leaning. If considering Ingroup, Authority and Purity is far less important that considering Fairness and
Harm, society is in a state of illogical, counterproductive denial.
We now begin to just see the tip of the iceberg now, breaking above the water. The monster begins to take shape: Individuals are more to blame than
society is more to blame than we. Except that, for the most part, we’re doing what we’re told. If we can accept that Nature’s default is that of
an open, flexible, dynamic system, then we should be able to accept that we are working against it if we are not doing the same. If we know that we
have been socially engineered to be the way we are, then the forces that made us that way, want us that way. So why do they want us to work against
nature? Does that mean we have been programmed to fail? Why? What else have they programmed us to do? Who are these people? These are also the
questions of the new enlightenment, but they are not being asked by the spiritualists and the social psychologists. They are being asked by me and
hopefully, by you.
Now that you have a base understanding of the domain, let us get to the point of this article: What is “Religious Nepotism” and what is the
difference between it and “Nepotistic religiousness.”
The origin of the word Nepotism has religious ties, (although this is moot to my argument, I thought it was interesting enough to warrant a
Nepotism is the favouring of friends or family, particularly to give them, “jobs.”
Quote from OXFORD Dictionary about source: C17: from French népotisme, from Italian nepotismo, from nipote 'nephew' (with reference to privileges
bestowed on the 'nephews' of popes, often really their illegitimate sons).
Nepotism itself is perilous. This is well illustrated to the masses in countless forms, but an excellent and poignant example is made by viewing the
ridiculous television program “Cakeboss.” Here is a talented man, who, rather than build his business (and his show) around even the same level of
professionalism he has, built it from relatives. So instead of having a business that runs like a well oiled machine with problems stemming only from
the odds one faces in life, the Cakeboss must constantly deal with drama, ineptitude, attitude and expectation. This is plainly, wholly and literally
retarded. It is in fact, indicative of a major flaw with western culture. This one example is only a harmless television program about baking! Imagine
what kind of shenanigans take place in the corridors of power...
end of part one