As someone who was raised Catholic and is now agnostic, I found the arguments made in the podcast and the reading incredibly interesting. Although I know that this is not true for all Catholics, I was pushed into Catholicism by someone who used their religion as a get-out-of-jail-free card for all of their morally questionable actions. We usually went to church twice a week, all of us were baptized, and we kept very far away from the mortal sins so we would be allowed into heaven no matter what else we did. This is, obviously, an intense normative framework that (in my incredibly biased opinion) eliminates any concept of free-will or self-determination of morals and virtues. Rather than logically determining if something is good or bad for myself, (though consequentialism, doenticism, or Aretaicism), the priests told me what would get me into heaven and I was expected to follow their directives without question. This is just my experience and it does not necessarily characterize the Catholic church as a whole, but in my view, the overbearing normative framework surrounding many religious institutions can lead to the inability to think for ones’ self and force someone to become a follower in the truest sense. (Sorry for any religious folks out there this is not meant to offend and is just my opinion! Please debate and discuss at will!)
For the reasons above, I personally lean towards a more relative framework that would teach citizens to evaluate morality for themselves. Although it might be idealistic, I believe that allowing people to wrestle with, contemplate, and understand why something is good or bad will make society more empathetic and intelligent as a whole. I don’t think that true relativism could work in any society because it would lead to literal anarchy, but I believe that blind followership is incredibly problematic as well. Those who have studied psychology may remember Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, in which the highest tier of development is following your personal morals based on your own values, save for a few widely accepted rights and wrongs. I agree with Kohlberg’s assessment, but know that it would be utopian to assume that this could be applicable to society generally speaking. Therefore, I believe that there should be a moderately relative framework for society with normative concepts that emphasize empathy and compassion.
As someone who was also raised Catholic, I agree that Catholicism along with other religions heavily push a normative world view. However, as a fellow idealist, I think the best scenario would be somewhere in between normative and relativism because of Dr. Bezio’s point that true relativists believe murder or white supremacy can be considered morally good.
As someone raised in a non-denominational Christian family, though my relationship with my religion has evolved, I definitely resonated with the points you made in your response. One key aspect of being a successful leader revolves around the relationship a leader has with her followers. It’s important to ensure that your followers maintain their “voice” and that they can express their moral judgments and arguments to you regarding morally conflicting issues, as this develops the trust, loyalty, and reverence to authority leaders need to succeed. This is likely to be the case only in which the leader is receptive to such ideas and makes an effort to understand where their followers are coming from.
I was raised by two catholic parents but I eventually evolved into agnosticism and atheism do to my own personal feelings on religion and the church itself. However the insights in your post certainly rang true with me. While I was raised to follow my own moral compass, it was heavily influenced by my parents, and thus was heavily influenced by the church I they grew up with and lived a lot of their lives in. However, I do agree with the ideals you’ve talked about; I think that while it is indeed idealistic, there should be some sort of framework that provides people with the idea to determine what is moralistic and what isn’t. If we are going to place so much emphasis on personal liberty- at least like we do in the west- shouldn’t it be up to the citizenry to interpret what is right and wrong in their own way? I think while some important morals should be governed (like murder, etc) it is important that we let people develop their own personal moral compass, so to speak.
Having been raised in a Catholic household and developing a complicated relationship with religion as I got older, I can relate to your story. I feel like my parents were always pretty good at balancing religious doctrine with allowing me to think for myself. You mention using going to church and avoiding mortal sin in the pursuit of getting into heaven as a shield against having to question your beliefs. Most organized religions are meant to unite people and encourage love and understanding. I think that some people inadvertently cause division and anger by putting too much emphasis on their religion’s literal moral framework. Without getting into too much detail, I have seen some very smart and compassionate people in my extended family fall into this trap. I think it is important not to lose the forest for the trees. A normative framework can lead people in the right direction, but when we choose adherence to the framework over objective, open-minded evaluation, we are bound to make some poor judgements.
At the same time, I think that religious belief and practice can be extremely beneficial and fulfilling for some people. It’s been said by others in this thread, and I agree: I don’t mean to disrespect or invalidate anyone who has a different perspective on Catholicism and/or religion than I do. I just want to share my experience. If anyone has a different opinion, I’d love to hear/talk about it.