Group morality vs Personal morality

[Darth Wong]

Here's a quote from Professor Daniel Dennett on morality:

SPIEGEL: But religion surely gives us moral standards and provides guidance on how to behave.

DENNETT: If that's what religion does, then I don't think it is such a silly idea. But it doesn't. Religions at their best serve as excellent social organizers. They make moral teamwork a much more effective force than it otherwise would be. This, however, is a two-edged sword. Because moral teamwork depends to a very large degree on ceding your own moral judgment to the authority of the group. And that can be extremely dangerous, as we know.

This is an interesting argument. The idea of submerging one's own moral judgment to that of a larger group consciousness is intrinsic to religion and is often touted as one of the benefits of religion. But Mr. Dennett turns it on its head and declares that it is dangerous. And why shouldn't he? Is there not something to be said for the idea that "moral teamwork", to use his terminology, is akin to mob rule and can be a dangerous thing? That it would be better for every individual to have his own moral code than to submerge each person's moral judgment to the will of a collective?

I suppose someone will argue that without "moral teamwork", each person is free to go his own way. But this really just moves that problem higher up the ladder. After all, what's to stop different moral "teams", or religions, from going their own way?

[glorfindel87]

That, sadly, is true in most religions. It is not the way it should be, however. In my church, a "group morality" is greatly discouraged. We are encouraged to seek for the truth ourselves and not trust what the pastor says. Because, as he says, he is merely human, and can't be perfectly right on everything. Where discussion and debate is, is safety in numbers.