Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

Can a forced ideology be called morality?

What I am concerned with here when I say “forced ideology” is when an individual accepts an ideology because they were told to do so, whether this is from a personal authority figure, such as a parent, or something or someone more systemic, such as the military commander for drafted soldiers.  This should be contrasted to an ideology one rationally accepts, based on knowledge and self-reflection.  There is, of course, a very grey area here which is not easy to define, but I am currently most interested in a strong understanding of forced ideology.

If a person does a “good” act based on a belief system which they have not rationally accepted, is the act really good?  Or is the person good/moral?  If a child makes a conscience effort to not lie on Christmas Eve for fear of not getting presents from Santa (assuming the child has something to gain from lieing), has the child done good?

My instinct tells me no, the act is not necessarily morally good.  One may argue that refraining from lieing is an objective moral good and the intent plays no part.  I, however, cannot agree with this.  Discarding the objective/subjective arguments of morality for another day, I cannot believe actions should be divorced so coldly from intent.

At issue for me is “good” actions which are more based on routine or dogma as opposed to rational choice or desire.  However, it seems that this thought has implications on “evil” actions as well.  If blind acceptance to an ideology devalues the “good” of an action, then it must devalue the “evil” of an action.
If giving to the poor because you are told to do so is not a morally good action, then what about a solider who kills because he is told to do so?  Or perhaps to make it even more stark, what about a man who rapes a virgin for purification?

I have too strong an emotional response to such evil deeds and too strong a belief in individual responsibility to accept that.  But I have to admit that I do feel that the good acts are devalued because of this.   Perhaps this is just faulty thinking on my part, but I think it simply leads to a better conclusion.

It is blind acceptance that is the problem.  I believe that blind acceptance is intellectually criminal.  Individuals must have a personal and reasoned system of beliefs or they do not really have a belief system.  One of the real tests of a person’s character is how they act compared to what they believe in.  Those with a void for a true belief system (or an understood belief system) often find themselves doing things or acting in ways contrary to their ideology.  Or they act accordingly to their ideology but are miserable in the process.

Blind acceptance is an individual choice.  You might even say (in fact, I do) that it is a moral choice.  Not accepting responsibility for your beliefs or your actions does not make those beliefs or actions justifiable.

It just makes them stupid.