I have recently finished Richard Dawkin’s masterpiece “The God Delusion”. I strongly commend it to anyone who… well, anyone. It reflects my opinions almost exactly.
One chapter of the book covered specifically the affect of society on the accepted morality of the time. One example he gave was a quote of Abraham Lincoln.
Before I share it with you though, I should point out the parallels that observers are making between Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln (even before he takes office tomorrow!).
But if a parallel is to be drawn we should be careful of viewing historical figures through rose-tinted glasses:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Lincoln didn’t do some great things for the slaves of America, and I’m not suggesting he was anything but a moral man by his day’s standards, but we must know the person before we can claim to be following in his footsteps (not that Obama is).
I hope Obama lives up to America’s, and the world’s, hopes. But I hope he is a moral man by today’s judgement, and not moral as Lincoln would be judged by today’s standards!
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by Alex Fear on January 20th, 2009 - 12:43 am
Good observation!
But then, had Lincoln been raised in this day and age, he may have made the intellectual step further beyond his understanding and tolerance as it was then.
I often wonder at the state of our moral landscape today (in the West at least) and what is now considered immoral which will be redefined in the future – for good or bad.
#2 by Gav on January 20th, 2009 - 7:34 pm
It’s an interesting question. And of course, with my 2009 brain, I am appalled at the thought of some things that are currently taboo being detabooified (that’s not a word, don’t check).
That said, there are some ‘morality’ items left over from times when most people were Christian in this country. Just as homosexuality has been made legal…
#3 by James G on January 26th, 2009 - 12:22 pm
Now,
If you can point to a humanist anti-slavery movement of the 19th Century (or the 20th Century for that matter; most anti-slavery groups now are still pretty Christian in character), then I would find Dawkins’ arguments more compelling. As it stands, it was Christians out of their Christian beliefs that spear-headed the anti-slavery movement.
And modern secular humanism would not exist without having first been forged in the heat of a Judaeo-Christian value system. If it were not so, then there would be a corresponding humanist movement in the Arab world (which,we are told ad infinitum, kept the Classics alive for all the world).
#4 by Gav on January 26th, 2009 - 11:34 pm
With respect James, there is nothing in the Old Testament that I would describe as a “value system” that can be described as moral by any modern standard so I’m not sure what your point is. The only difference between the extremists in Islam and the ‘typical’ Christian or Jew in the West is that the westerner doesn’t believe what he reads.
I know a Muslim from a part of Africa where literal truths are not taken from the descriptions of punishments in Leviticus and I know of (though not personally) a person from another part of Africa of the Christian faith who lives in an area where literal truths are taken. The simplistic “Muslims didn’t have the renaissance” doesn’t really explain the semetic religions.