Pheda: A hierarchical moral model does not necessarily depend on a pet-like infantilization. Consider for example the Jewish Talmud, the rabbinic tradition of commenting on Mosaic law. Consider especially the Gemara:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemara
or the long accretion of rabbinical commentary and analysis of the Mishnah, an analysis of the Torah. Rabbis argue down the centuries over how the Law plays out in a given situation. Not only do they interact with the original text of the Torah, but they interact with prior analysis of the Torah in trying to figure out how to act in the world. The rabbi of the Gemara is no infantilized pet, following an Alpha Monkey in a blind stupor: he's an earnest, careful mind in active pursuit of justice, shalom, the good.
Likewise, it's difficult to reconcile a mind like Stanley Hauerwas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hauerwas
or Richard Hays
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hays
with your picture of the infantilized pet. I'm just trying to introduce a modicum of reality in your assumptions about people who follow the hierarchical moral model. They're often quite analytic. More than that, they're often careful in their analysis of the limits of the writings that underpin their moral model. Hays, for example, who is an orthodox Christian, is pretty clear that it's impossible to derive a single principle on which to base a system of ethics from the New Testament.
Many non-academic followers of hierarchical moral models also seem to be diligent in their analysis of ethical situations. Because they want to reverence the thing at the top of their hierarchy, they don't act willy-nilly: they discern. Accurate discernment of another's will requires analysis.
I'm just trying to show that obedience doesn't always mean mindlessness, and in fact often (as in the case of the Rabbinic tradition, and as in the case of the field of Christian ethics) requires the opposite, a fully engaged mind.
Consider the Talmud
Date: 2007-06-23 05:51 am (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemara
or the long accretion of rabbinical commentary and analysis of the Mishnah, an analysis of the Torah. Rabbis argue down the centuries over how the Law plays out in a given situation. Not only do they interact with the original text of the Torah, but they interact with prior analysis of the Torah in trying to figure out how to act in the world. The rabbi of the Gemara is no infantilized pet, following an Alpha Monkey in a blind stupor: he's an earnest, careful mind in active pursuit of justice, shalom, the good.
Likewise, it's difficult to reconcile a mind like Stanley Hauerwas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hauerwas
or Richard Hays
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hays
with your picture of the infantilized pet. I'm just trying to introduce a modicum of reality in your assumptions about people who follow the hierarchical moral model. They're often quite analytic. More than that, they're often careful in their analysis of the limits of the writings that underpin their moral model. Hays, for example, who is an orthodox Christian, is pretty clear that it's impossible to derive a single principle on which to base a system of ethics from the New Testament.
Many non-academic followers of hierarchical moral models also seem to be diligent in their analysis of ethical situations. Because they want to reverence the thing at the top of their hierarchy, they don't act willy-nilly: they discern. Accurate discernment of another's will requires analysis.
I'm just trying to show that obedience doesn't always mean mindlessness, and in fact often (as in the case of the Rabbinic tradition, and as in the case of the field of Christian ethics) requires the opposite, a fully engaged mind.