- Three Periods in the Development of morality and religion: The Primitive Age: From the beginning of social living, the natural tendencies that guided man and his actions benefited him greatly. One can imagine that in a pre-society (organized society) period, family units were very small, composed most probably only of a couple and their offspring. These units were the expression of. man's natural instinct to mate and to raise children, an instinct that is predicated on natural inherent feelings called love, with which man is blessed still today and which he continues to develop. Just like the inclination to establish underlying principles and to associate with others, feelings of love necessarily, naturally, and logically led the couple living without a wider social framework to establish certain rules of behavior to govern their relationship. Rules that applied to their children ostensibly followed from these. Here too then, is an example in which self-interest did not guide man - to find his mate, to establish mutual rights and responsibilities between himself and his mate and their children. Self interest was not at the root of these developments, it was not their cause, but rather a consequence of primary forces that stem from human nature. In this book, this historical period of man's narrow societal structuring into couples and families will be called - 'The primitive age.' The Age of Religion: The second period of human social development is one that falls between the 'primitive age' and modern time - a period that will be referred to here as 'the Age of Secularism' since during it a kind of 'secular religion' developed throughout the world. In this interim period - 'the Age of Religion', social frameworks developed and the dominant factor in the establishment of societal behavioral norms was religious belief. These norms were established in an environment of religious faith, even if this faith was not the sole influence. The 'Age of Religion' will be examined at the beginning from a Jewish viewpoint. In Jewish way of life until the modern era, Torah laws played a primary role. This Torah included an Oral Law that Jews believed God also gave to Moses at Sinai, as well as religious rulings and Jewish doctrine. Religion and religious statutes played a central role in this period also among other nations. The transition from the Age of Religion to the Age of Secularism was marked in England by a markedly new view of the role of Parliament. The English Parliament initially functioned as a law court that offered the king counsel regarding the law but did not legislate. In other words, just as a court must identify what the laws are in order to adjudicate according to them, the Parliament similarly identified the laws, just more broadly and not in relation to a particular case. This perception of the Parliament stemmed from a belief in a divine origin of the law - the king had no authority to establish law but only to interpret divine laws and to apply them to the needs and problems of his time. Parliament was given authority to approve taxes that the king required to run his country or fight his wars. In England, a Common Law developed alongside the religious law. It was only with the spread of secularism that the Parliament began legislating changes in the Common Law, and Parliament gradually evolved into a legislative body in the modern sense of the word. The one thing that distinguishes a religious ethic from a secular Western one is that the religious ethic is built on obligations while the Western one is built on rights alongside obligations. There are no rights, essentially, in the divinely based ethic, as it exists today (this include Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucius' system, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). An ethic whose source is from above, from a transcendental being who has influence over the world and who determines how man should behave, is a hierarchic system of principles imposed from above on man who exists down below. It is not man, but rather the transcendental being who imposes a binding ethic, who is supreme. Therefore, the Biblical injunction that a Hebrew slave goes free in the Sabbatical (seventh) year obligates the master to free his slave while granting the slave the right to go free only as a by product of the master's obligation. The Torah commands the Jews to set Hebrew slaves free in the seventh year, to love the foreigner, to judge him impartially, and to treat the orphan and widow with kindness. It instructs those who are more fortunate to act with charity towards those who are less fortunate; it does not turn to the recipients of this charity and inform them that they have a right to this treatment. In Confucianism similarly, the master is commanded to treat his worker in a certain way (eg. with tolerance) and the worker must listen to his master. There is no declaration of the worker's right to this treatment but rather only an obligation imposed upon the master. This is generally the case regarding all divinely based systems of morality. Obligations, not rights are established both upon the individual and as is common in Hinduism and Judaism, upon the group. There are certainly some today who wish to prove that Judaism confers and always conferred rights, in order to make Judaism more palatable to those for whom human rights are a supreme value. The beauty of the divine ethic, though, in contrast to Western morality in which man - by definition - has no higher authority to emulate, is that man does not see himself as supreme but rather aims to raise his level of morality. The Age of Secularism: In the 'Age of Secularism', through the process of developing a kind of 'civil religion', Western philosophers searched for a source of morality or ethics. Initially, they attempted to anchor normative principles in objective sources. The transition from the Age of Religion to the Age of Secularism was bound up in a search for a new legitimate source that would be as objective as the divine source and thus could replace it. Objective, in their eyes, implied 'truth' and truth was compelling, worthy of being followed. Hobbes, Sieyes, and Kant each offered a different justification for their ethical systems. of a social contract found validation in the accepted principle that 'agreements should be honored.' The democratic movement, as expressed in the modern period by the ideologue of the French Revolution, Sieyes, and his followers, found legitimization in the notion that the nation is sovereign and the legitimate landlord of its country. Just as a landlord may do as he will with his own property, the nation has a binding lawful right to exercise its will over its own property. Therefore, if it is their will to choose for themselves a legislator who will create a constitution and pass laws, these laws will be binding because they were legislated by a legislator of all the nation's choosing. Kant found legitimization in the 'truth' and 'objectivity' that are within subjective man's only objective possession, namely his reason. Pure practical reason, unsullied by man's subjective elements, is the objective ideal by which truth may be discovered. Practical reason can take one of two paths in order to uncover the truth. It can follow the course of natural sciences, physics, and 'find' the true laws of nature (that exist) or it can follow the course of morality and virtue and create ethical principles, a creation ex nihilo. Kant sought to offer man freedom, freedom from laws of nature, a freedom that alongside the objectivity of the rules that his intelligence would establish, would motivate man to adhere to those same rules as a free man. This was a freedom that man in the 'Age of Religion,' who was bound by religious precepts, never enjoyed. Kant did not seek a source for morality in nature; if man's pure practical intelligence had 'revealed' such a source, and adhered to its laws, man would see himself as constrained by natural laws that he did not create. Pure practical reason, however, belongs to man, and since it created principles of morality and laws autonomously, man's compliance with these laws does not constitute enslavement, but rather the epitome of freedom. Consequently, man will willingly obey these laws. The legitimization of (secular) laws of morality was thus based on a truth that was derived from objectivity, and the freedom that is inherent in following these laws. Kant sought (unconsciously) to solve one of the problems Rousseau raised regarding the transition from a religious moral system to a secular one, by establishing a new 'objective' source for moral commandments, namely that of 'pure practical reason.' Kant posited that one must not establish behavioral norms based on man's [subjective] feelings, on his practical needs and desires, and on his aspirations. None of these are suitable sources for moral commands for they are all dependent on man's whim. Morality's authority lies in its objectivity. This trend toward objectivity, as will be seen, exists also today according to Rawls. The connection between the transition from the Age of Religion to the Age of Secularism and the fundamentals of Kant's theory of morality and his idealization of pure reason, need not be interpreted as pretentious calumny of Kant and his philosophy. You may protest: 'How dare the author of this book accuse Kant, one of the central pillars of the philosophy of morality, of distorting and twisting his theories in order to bolster secular philosophy? How can he suggest that Kant tailored his philosophy, which was intended to be theoretical truth untainted by any subjective interest, to promote secularism? What right does he have to charge Kant with such dishonesty, thus detracting from the value of his theories and the inner truth they hold?' To this we respond that this work never meant to imply that Kant deliberately misled his followers or that he did not believe in his own philosophy. Kant, like all philosophers in every generation, was a product of his environment. He experienced the problems of his time and of the community in which he lived. Thus, though his theory of objective morality seemed to him to be free of any personal interest or bias, and as such he represented it in his writings, it was unconsciously influenced by his generation and country. This is one of our primary criticisms of Kant's theory, a theory that has been critiqued by many including Rupert Emerson who attributed hidden motives to all German philosophers from Kant until the rise of Nazism in Germany. The synthesis of logic and emotion, both of which are inherent to man, create human morality. When logic and emotion clash, then it is emotion that rules. For example: Can one logically persuade a mother that she should kill her child and eat his flesh, thus providing herself with meat, as well as saving herself the irrational burden of raising him? Conversely, can a person's love for his children impel him to give them all his possessions when they become adults, leaving nothing for himself? If that person does hold himself back from distributing his wealth, is it because logic dictates that it is unwise that he put himself in the position of needing to rely on his children's generosity in supporting him when he is old. It is logical to retain whatever one will need in old age so as not to become dependent on others, including his children. If his wealth runs out in old age, then he won't will any to his children. The view taken here, however, is that it is not logic that competes with his love for his children but rather an opposing emotion - his will for self survival, self sufficiency, and self dependence. In this situation when two emotions are in conflict, then logic will prevail. Consequently, despite the dominance of emotion, most of man's behavior is ultimately guided by reason since logic determines which of two conflicting emotions will triumph. For example, man has an emotional interest in making a living that goes beyond his practical-physical interest. The question of what is the most effective way of achieving this emotional goal will be determined by man's reason, assuming that several means of providing for his livelihood are compatible with his emotional desires. Logic will only select, however, an option that is in the running emotionally. Thus, if a certain means of making a living is emotionally oppressive to man, it is unlikely that he will choose it, even if logically it seems ideal.The existence of the driving forces of reason and emotion within every person, as well as the regular dominance of emotion are proof that these are not the products merely of nurture and education, but rather inherent forces within man, which came into being when he did. Further on, this book will examine other innate tendencies such as familial loyalty, a propensity for communal life, and a desire to organize details within the framework of general principles both in what man encounters in the reality about him, in nature, and within his family life and society, in his behavior within these frameworks. This section, however, will focus on the roles reason and emotion play. Man was blessed with these two guiding forces, as well as the inclination to use these forces in a 'humane' manner, and thus emotion will generally prevail over logic. Thus when man establishes moral principles, obligations and rights, emotion determines the guiding principles, while logic fills in the details. Emotion will resolve that it is imperative to help the weaker members of society; reason will determine what percentage of one's income one should contribute to this cause. Social communities and nations function in this respect just like the individual: dominant sentiments which reverberate within the nation will determine the nation's fundamental goals and positions. A country will organize as a social democratic state in accordance with their feelings, while reason will determine the details, how to reconcile social democratic principles with sometimes conflicting economic considerations. Moral principles are primarily the product of emotions, of a perspective that sees the forest more than the trees, while specific laws passed in a certain country's legislature are a product of reason and cold calculation. Basically, laws are rules of social behavior that come into existence over a relatively short period of time through a formal process. Moral principles, on the other hand, evolve through an informal prolonged process. Principles of law can be divided into two categories: rules of conduct and legal rights, and law enforcement, which include sanctions for infractions of the first category. Most laws will include both types, sometimes in separate sections, sometimes in one, with the legal sanctions generally enforced by or via the state. Moral principles, in contrast, are imposed through social rather than legal sanctions. The common denominator between moral and legal principles is that both seem to advance a higher cause. Yet there is a wide range of views on what defines a higher cause. Liberals who consider man's individual rights more important than the common interest will claim that these rights promote each individual's self fulfillment, the highest of values. Those who support social values and the interests of general society will describe communal goals as higher than narrow-individual ones. They will claim that since man is a social being he has no business protecting individual rights, without concern for their affect on the general interests, which ultimately serve also the individual. Religious people who consider their deity the supreme value, will speak about advancing the will of their God, or alternatively about developing man's spirit so that he will better comprehend his creator and the will of his creator, and be more capable of emulating his attributes.