Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: Holden on May 09, 2007, 11:24:45 PM
-
I've heard a few people say that the definition of 'tolerant' has changed. Perhaps the funniest I heard was John Lofton, who said the new definition of 'tolerant' is "Christians, shut up!" Certainly the word is being used more frequently, but has the meaning really changed? Perhaps the following definitions with dates can help:
Toleration
1517, "permission granted by authority, license," from M.Fr. tolération (15c.), from L. tolerationem (nom. toleratio) "a bearing, supporting, enduring," from toleratus, pp. of tolerare "to tolerate, lit. "to bear" (see extol). Meaning "forbearance, sufferance" is from 1582. Religious sense is from Act of Toleration, statute granting freedom of religious worship (with conditions) to dissenting Protestants in England, 1689.
Intolerable
1435, from L. intolerabilis "that cannot bear, that cannot be borne," from in- "not" + tolerabilis "that may be endured," from tolerare "to tolerate" (see toleration). Intolerance "unwillingness to endure a differing opinion" first attested 1765.
Tolerance
1412, "endurance, fortitude," from O.Fr. tolerance (14c.), from L. tolerantia "endurance," from tolerans, prp. of tolerare "to bear, endure, tolerate" (see toleration). Of authorities, in the sense of "permissive," first recorded 1539; of individuals, with the sense of "free from bigotry or severity," 1765. Meaning "allowable amount of variation" dates from 1868; and physiological sense of "ability to take large doses" first recorded 1875. Tolerant is recorded from 1784. The verb tolerate is attested from 1531.
Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php
Text for the aforementioned Act of Toleration: http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/1689toleration.htm
-
Interesting research. Those all seem to fall in line with my idea of tollerance, which again makes me think that the word has evolved.
I am thinking, now, that I would like some clarity of definition. We have three different ideas: 1.) Peacefully permitting the existence and practices of those you disagree with, 2.) Trying to understand and see the good in those you disagree with and 3.) Accepting that what everyone else thinks is just as right and true as what you think. I say tollerance means the first, slic says it means the second and I feel that the definition is slowly shifting to mean the third.
So, if we cannot agree on which of these things the word "tollerance" means, maybe we should broaden our vocubaly and use a different word for each of the them.
-
Interesting research. Those all seem to fall in line with my idea of tollerance, which again makes me think that the word has evolved.
I am thinking, now, that I would like some clarity of definition. We have three different ideas: 1.) Peacefully permitting the existence and practices of those you disagree with, 2.) Trying to understand and see the good in those you disagree with and 3.) Accepting that what everyone else thinks is just as right and true as what you think. I say tollerance means the first, slic says it means the second and I feel that the definition is slowly shifting to mean the third.
So, if we cannot agree on which of these things the word "tollerance" means, maybe we should broaden our vocubaly and use a different word for each of the them.
It's interesting that your three definitions imply an ever decreasing amount of close-mindedness: 1) with the most and 3) with the least. If you added an extra layer on each end then 0) would be discrimination 4) would be assimilation (insert obligatory Borg comment here :P )
I'd be happy if we could just get everyone to at least level 1). "They are not like me, so I will leave them alone."
-
Is that always possible, however?
There's been a lot of Christian cooption of the language of civil rights, for instance. I taught creative writing in a high school a couple years ago, and the teacher I was working with was a lesbian. There was a man who wanted her and her views to be shut out of the school system. This is not peacefully permitting the existence of others.
His argument was that his intolerance deserved the same respect as her sexual orientation. This is ridiculous on the face of it.
Still, it poses the question: when you have two groups requesting diametrically opposed aims -- one claiming their right to exist in the public square, the other claiming that their religious freedom requires the exclusion of the prior group -- mere peaceful inclusion is no longer sufficient. One has to take a stance on rights.
-
So, if we cannot agree on which of these things the word "tollerance" means, maybe we should broaden our vocubaly and use a different word for each of the them.
Tolerance
American Heritage Dictionary
The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
Leeway for variation from a standard.
The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
Physiological resistance to a poison.
The capacity to absorb a drug continuously or in large doses without adverse effect; diminution in the response to a drug after prolonged use.
Acceptance of a tissue graft or transplant without immunological rejection.
Unresponsiveness to an antigen that normally produces an immunological reaction.
The capacity to endure hardship or pain.
Online Etymology Dictionary
1412, "endurance, fortitude," from O.Fr. tolerance (14c.), from L. tolerantia "endurance," from tolerans, prp. of tolerare "to bear, endure, tolerate" (see toleration). Of authorities, in the sense of "permissive," first recorded 1539; of individuals, with the sense of "free from bigotry or severity," 1765. Meaning "allowable amount of variation" dates from 1868; and physiological sense of "ability to take large doses" first recorded 1875. Tolerant is recorded from 1784. The verb tolerate is attested from 1531.
WordNet
1. the power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions
2. a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior [syn: permissiveness] [ant: restrictiveness]
3. the act of tolerating something
4. willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others [ant: intolerance]
5. a permissible difference; allowing some freedom to move within limits [syn: allowance]
Associate words:
Respect
1. a particular, detail, or point (usually prec. by in): to differ in some respect.
2. relation or reference: inquiries with respect to a route.
3. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
5. the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.
6. respects, a formal expression or gesture of greeting, esteem, or friendship: Give my respects to your parents.
7. favor or partiality.
8. Archaic. a consideration.
9. to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat.
10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.
11. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy.
12. to relate or have reference to.
13. in respect of, in reference to; in regard to; concerning.
14. in respect that, Archaic. because of; since.
15. pay one's respects, a. to visit in order to welcome, greet, etc.: We paid our respects to the new neighbors.
b. to express one's sympathy, esp. to survivors following a death: We paid our respects to the family.
16. with respect to, referring to; concerning: with respect to your latest request.
Intolerance
1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure: intolerance to heat.
3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc.
4. an intolerant act.
Bigotry
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
The meaning of the word "tolerance" is not up for debate. If ones intended meaning doesn't match what the dictionary says, than one should use another word, or they may continue using the word how they wish and accept that they will be using it incorrectly. In time, consistently incorrect use of a word will either change the meaning of the word, or expose the user as a fool.
-
Is that always possible, however?
Yes, but only if everyone is willing.
It's also possible that lightning will strike me before I finish this post - and probably equally likely. :P
How about if we gather up all the intolerable people and just dispose of them? :P
-
Thaur - Big thanks to you for the you spent on your post and for including your sources.
I believe the disagreement regarding the term lies in the difference between intolerant actions/deeds/acts and intolerant thoughts/words/opinions. If one person strongly disapproved of yet begrudgingly endured another person's behavior, bemoaning and lamenting through the whole ordeal but made no effort to stop the behavior, in fact even abetted it, would that be and example of tolerant or intolerant behavior? Somewhere in between?
For example, if a Christian mother strongly and repeatedly verbally disapproved of her daughter's groom-to-be because he is Muslim, yet out of love and respect for her daughter, she consents to the marriage and even helps plan and pay for the wedding, though with fairly regular verbal reminders that the disapproves of the groom, is she acting in a tolerant or intolerant manner? Somewhere in between?
-
The mother is being tollerant. An intollerant mother would 1.) Use force to stop the wedding or 2.) try to make everyone's life hell by being bitchy. A mother who lets it proceed while remaining stolid in her disaproval is being tollerant. (If she approved of the arrangement, no tolleration would be necessary.)
------
Maybe if I withdraw this from the arena of morality and religion, you all will be able to see better where I'm coming from. Let's talk about bare facts: Suppose a person believes that 2+2=5. How would one exhibit tollerance for that belief? Do you say, "Well, your math is as good as mine," or do you nicely inform the person that they are mistaken? If a person believes the Earth is flat, do you acquiesce and say, "Well, maybe it is; I see the virtue of your viewpoint," or do take them asside and explain how Direct TV works?
-
Ah, yes, but math is definitive. 1 will always be 1. Murder can be held to be not always wrong (self defense, if that person is about to kill another). Morality is relative.
One person's view of what is wrong and right can be shaped and changed by the people around them, or the situation (the name escapes me, but the experiment with the students being given the roles of prisoner and wardens).
There is an averaged morality that society seems to adopt, but it's usually under some flux, and can be different from place to place and group to group.
So tolerance is the acceptance of variable morality and the acceptance that you can't make everyone's morality yours.
Now, if your tolerance means that you're accepting that by someone else's morality it's ok to kill you, well, you've got too far. But if it doesn't personally affect you in a direct way (Gay Marriage, Abortion), well, to be tolerant is to say that you would not do whatever is immoral to you, but you cannot make others not do that thing.
The problem is that there are people that believe that their morality being held by a majority of people means that they have the right to set the morality in law for everybody.
-
The mother is being tollerant. An intollerant mother would 1.) Use force to stop the wedding or 2.) try to make everyone's life hell by being bitchy. A mother who lets it proceed while remaining stolid in her disaproval is being tollerant. (If she approved of the arrangement, no tolleration would be necessary.)
I disagree. I feel that the example would be best illustrated by switching and group of people for 'Muslim'. If you take the same example and substitute White and Black for Christian and Muslim, respectively, for many it would become more visceral:
For example, if a White mother strongly and repeatedly verbally disapproved of her daughter's groom-to-be because he is Black, yet out of love and respect for her daughter, she consents to the marriage and even helps plan and pay for the wedding, though with fairly regular verbal reminders that she disapproves of the groom, is she acting in a tolerant or intolerant manner? Somewhere in between?
If she's not willing to explore the possibility that this man will love, honor and cherish her daughter for as long as he shall live than I would say she is not tolerant to Black folks. If being Black is the exclusive criterea, then there must be something about Black people in general, not about this one person, that she is intolerant of.
-
I believe the disagreement regarding the term lies in the difference between intolerant actions/deeds/acts and intolerant thoughts/words/opinions. If one person strongly disapproved of yet begrudgingly endured another person's behavior, bemoaning and lamenting through the whole ordeal but made no effort to stop the behavior, in fact even abetted it, would that be and example of tolerant or intolerant behavior? Somewhere in between?
The fact that the mother disapproves at all is a sign that she is intolerant.
In order to have any moral fiber at all there must be things you do no tolerate. What you are discussing isn't "tolerance" but "acceptance." In your examples the mother is intolerant of Muslims/blacks/jugglers, she does however "begrudgingly endure" her daughter's choice. She accepts her daughter's choice, however intolerant she may be of the suitor’s lifestyle.
The mother is being tollerant. An intollerant mother would 1.) Use force to stop the wedding or 2.) try to make everyone's life hell by being bitchy. A mother who lets it proceed while remaining stolid in her disaproval is being tollerant. (If she approved of the arrangement, no tolleration would be necessary.)
No, she is not being tolerant. She is, at best, being accepting. I believe "though with fairly regular verbal reminders that the disapproves of the groom" counts as #2 on your list. And though it may not seem so from your current perspective, try being the daughter whose mother "regularly" reminds her of how much her life choices is loathed. The kind of hypocrisy exhibited in the wedding example is something I have seen very prevalent in all walks of life, not just religious. From office politics to sporting events, we are a hypocritical bunch.
Maybe if I withdraw this from the arena of morality and religion, you all will be able to see better where I'm coming from. Let's talk about bare facts: Suppose a person believes that 2+2=5. How would one exhibit tollerance for that belief? Do you say, "Well, your math is as good as mine," or do you nicely inform the person that they are mistaken? If a person believes the Earth is flat, do you acquiesce and say, "Well, maybe it is; I see the virtue of your viewpoint," or do take them asside and explain how Direct TV works?
This is apples and orangutans. Math is, as we currently understand it, a very concrete thing. By virtue of counting real objects we can universally confirm that 2 objects plus 2 more objects is 4 objects. It's so universal that we hope to mathematics to communicate with other races, and hopeful with alien life. Tolerance, acceptance, and morality are considerably less so. Perhaps drawing a parallel to something that is equally debatable would help clarify your position?
-
Toleration is always espoused by the minority, never the majority. Once the minority becomes the majority, there is little or no quarter for the former minority. There are exceptions, such and the Muslim Caliphates of the Middle Ages, but even the minority Christians and Jews were restricted.
Some think toleration is a "yeah, whatever" view of opposing viewpoints, religions or lifestyles. In the contemporary sense, it means allowing behavior or practice that causes no physical or prolonged emotional harm to another or encourages predatory behaviour. So if you have a town that is 90% Christian and there are a handful of atheists, Moslems and gays, a sensible person would accept that there is no threat of harm to the majority. A few may convert to the other side, but it won't cause a landslide of defections. I'm paraphrasing much of what JS Mill said, but its my view of it.
But whoever said that America is run by sensible people?
This thread started with "Toleration means Christians-Shut Up." Been paying attention the last few centuries? Religious authorities have rarely (unless their faith is the minority) espoused toleration to differing beliefs. I've noticed there are many self-proclaimed "Conservative Christians" here. Your leaders have made it clear that "toleration" is a liberal ideology whose motives is to destroy Christianity. They espouse only voting for true Christian politicians, not keeping company with non or lukewarm Christians, denying gays and non-Christians civil rights, and turning all public schools into parochial schools.
Where is the toleration in that? Nowhere. So maybe Christians should just shut up? I don't agree with that, but many of us involved in this conversation won't cotton to Religion, Inc.'s tendicies to bar the conversation entirely.
-
How is morality relative?
Is there certain threshhold where, if I get angry enough, it becomes okay for me to shoot people? Is there a threshold where, if I want something baddly enough, it becomes okay to steal it? Is rape okay if I'm realy, realy horny? Etc.
Morality is clean-cut and black and white, very similar to mathematics. Take the most basic moral paradigm: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." How do you negotiate with that statement? You either are following it, or you aren't. As in math, coming to the answer might be hard or easy, depending on the situation, but there is a right answer.
Now, if your tolerance means that you're accepting that by someone else's morality it's ok to kill you, well, you've got too far. But if it doesn't personally affect you in a direct way (Gay Marriage, Abortion), well, to be tolerant is to say that you would not do whatever is immoral to you, but you cannot make others not do that thing.
I don't really want to vear off and go there, but both of those things have a direct and relevant impact on society as a whole and on each person in it. (In the case of abortion, for instance, we have about 45 million fewer people under 30 in the US than we would have had without it. Quite an impact, on everyone.)
-
How is morality relative?
What one person thinks is immoral may not be what another person thinks is immoral
Morality is clean-cut and black and white, very similar to mathematics.
Really?
I challenge you to prove logically that gay marriage is wrong.
-
One person's view of what is wrong and right can be shaped and changed by the people around them, or the situation (the name escapes me, but the experiment with the students being given the roles of prisoner and wardens).
The Stanford Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/). Reading about it for the first time forced me to reexamine a large part of my worldview and my opinions about evil. This is nightmare stuff.
Incidentally, the professor in charge of the experiment, Philip Zimbardo, has a new book out called The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. He writes about the Experiment, about Abu Ghraib, school shootings, and evil on a much smaller and everyday scale, such as schoolyard bullyings and peer torment. He's been doing a lot of interviews lately, including on podcasts such as Skepticality and Shrink Rap Radio.
-
Morality is clean-cut and black and white, very similar to mathematics. Take the most basic moral paradigm: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." How do you negotiate with that statement? You either are following it, or you aren't.
Mr. Tweedy, I disagree strongly. Not with the principle (the Golden Rule, aka the Ethic of Reciprocity, is not a paradigm, it's a principle); it is indeed one of the best ideas humanity has ever come up with; but with the notion that it has the hard edges of arithmetic. It's a good heuristic, but it's not digital. It's analog.
Mathematics works because it's a closed system with known variables. When one says "2 + 2 = 4," there is no fear that another digit is going to sneak into the equation, or that the first 2 has communication issues that prevent it from coming to terms with the second 2, or that the plus sign is really a minus sign living a conflicted life.
I could challenge your assertion with any number of scenarios, from gay marriage to civil disobedience to lunch menus, but instead I'll just ask you two questions:
- Do you understand yourself completely? Do you have a full comprehension of everything you want people to do unto you, and the implications of those desires?
- Do you understand other people completely? Do you have a full comprehension of their desires, and the implications of those desires?
To say that morality can be mathematical implies that you know all the variables. It implies omniscience. If you can honestly answer "Yes" to both of the questions above, then I suppose you may have a... Wait. Don't Christians have a name for an omniscient being that knows the hearts and minds of every creature on Earth?
Are you that being?
If you are not... Might claiming hard-edged, unambiguous moral certainty in all human matters be just a little presumptuous?
-
Morality is clean-cut and black and white, very similar to mathematics. Take the most basic moral paradigm: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." How do you negotiate with that statement? You either are following it, or you aren't. As in math, coming to the answer might be hard or easy, depending on the situation, but there is a right answer.
Taken.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What does that mean, exactly?
Literally it means that if I want someone to give me $1000, I should give out $1000. That would be morally correct.
It means that if I want someone to compliment me, I should compliment them. That would also be morally correct.
It means if I like beer, I should buy one for my friend, even if he doesn't like beer or doesn't want to buy me one. Still morally correct.
It means that if I want to see my wife have sex with my best friend, I should have sex with my best friend's wife. Still morally correct.
The golden rule, taken as an absolute, is not black and white. The golden rule does nothing to consider the desires of others and can swiftly become a very selfish ideal.
I don't really want to vear off and go there, but both of those things have a direct and relevant impact on society as a whole and on each person in it. (In the case of abortion, for instance, we have about 45 million fewer people under 30 in the US than we would have had without it. Quite an impact, on everyone.)
Any yet we are still over crowded.
-
I like defining terms, and I've enjoyed many of the thoughtful posts on this thread. In sharing my position about the nature of tolerance and intolerance, there are two points that I'd like to make.
My first point: You can only tolerate that which you dislike or disapprove of. If you enjoy or approve of something, then terms "tolerant" and "intolerant" have no application. If you objectively read the full definitions posted by Thaur and myself, it will be clear that some level of dislike or disapproval is inherent in the term "tolerant". Consider these ridiculous sounding sentences:
"While I enjoy practically all of the stories on Pseudopod, Counting From Ten is my favorite, which I tolerate."
"I tolerate Escape Pod, which is an immensely fun podcast that I enjoy, and I eagerly look forward to each new story."
"He is a believer in the equality of all races because he tolerates blacks and other minorities working in his factories."
It's pretty clear that these sentences sound self-contridictory. The reason for this the term "tolerate", which denotes some level of dislike or disapproval. Here's some sentences that make correct use of the term "tolerate":
"While I enjoy practically all of the stories on Pseudopod, I didn't like Turista, but I can tolerate a bad story every now and then because of the high quality of most the stories they produce."
"Listening to the Escape Pod, an immensely fun podcast that I enjoy, makes it easier for me tolerate my terrible drive to work."
"He is a racist and a bigot, and he only tolerates blacks and other minorities working in his factories because of federal anti-discrimination laws."
These sentences sound reasonable because they are applying the term "tolerate" to situations in which the person is voluntarily choosing to endure something they don't like or approve of.
My second point: There are degrees of tolerance and intolerance. One person can be more or less tolerant than another, or more tolerant of one thing than anther. In the wedding example, the mother could more tolerant by never saying a negative word about the groom and going out of her way to make him feel welcome. She could be more intolerant by refusing to give her consent and refusing to help plan and pay for the wedding.
-
I don't really want to vear off and go there, but both of those things have a direct and relevant impact on society as a whole and on each person in it. (In the case of abortion, for instance, we have about 45 million fewer people under 30 in the US than we would have had without it. Quite an impact, on everyone.)
On the notion of social impact we fully agree. In fact, I'd love to get your opinion on Steven Levitt's research correlating Roe vs. Wade with a precipitious drop in nationwide urban crime in the past 30 years. Statistics indicate that access to legal abortion has likely made the country much safer. (It sounds extraordinarily callous, but the demographics are pretty clear: all of those people who don't exist? The vast majority of them would have been racial minorities, in poverty, undereducated, with very little opportunity for advancement. And that means crime and violence.)
I don't know what formal studies have been done on the socio-economic implications of gay marriage; but I look at the amount of money that goes into the wedding industry every year, into co-pays and increased efficiency of health benefits for spouses, into leisure and dining and all the things that couples do for each other that involve spending money... Then I look at the higher-than-average purchasing power of the homosexual demographic. I look at their education level, at the sharply reduced rates of domestic violence, at the success and overall happiness of kids who are intentionally adopted and not accidentally conceived at a really bad time... And I have to wonder. Have you ever stopped to think at all about the possible social upsides? Have you really done the analysis to conclude that the downsides are greater?
I do not believe that society should be empowered to make individual decisions for people when there's no direct and immediate threat to others' life, liberty or property. Suggesting that the overall good of society should take priority over individual liberty is socialism, Mr. Tweedy, and I believe it's been shown not to work in practice. However, examining the social implications of individual choices is a fine and appropriate course of study.
I do think about this stuff. And I think that, from a perspective of social good, most of the objections raised to some adults' consensual lifestyle choices are moronic. There's no actual good achieved by stopping other people from exercising liberty in these cases -- and much lost opportunity and squandered resources.
-
The problem is that there are people that believe that their morality being held by a majority of people means that they have the right to set the morality in law for everybody.
Thats how democracy works. The majority enforces it's will. If that will includes making laws to support a moral standpoint thats its right.
If it's possible to prevent a democracy from imposing its majority-moral's then you no longer have a true democracy.
The will of the people and all that.
If Florida ( or any other state ) decides to be the "state of intolerance" isnt it they're right as a democracy ? Wouldn't it be intolerant/immoral to not allow them.
-
If it's possible to prevent a democracy from imposing its majority-moral's then you no longer have a true democracy.
Which is exactly why the United States has never been a true democracy. I don't know if a true democracy has ever existed at any scale larger than the town level. The nation I live in is a constitutional republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic), as are most other nations of the modern world.
This is important, because pure democracy very easily enables evil of precisely the sort you describe: minorities crushed beneath the heel of an angry mob. Constitutional republics can enable this too, but it's a slower and harder process. The ideal of any constitution is to impair evil more efficiently than it impairs good.
If Florida ( or any other state ) decides to be the "state of intolerance" isnt it they're right as a democracy ? Wouldn't it be intolerant/immoral to not allow them.
The issue of the primacy of states' rights was settled over a century and a half ago. You probably missed the war; so did I; but I believe there was a movie made about it.
-
The problem is that there are people that believe that their morality being held by a majority of people means that they have the right to set the morality in law for everybody.
Thats how democracy works. The majority enforces it's will. If that will includes making laws to support a moral standpoint thats its right.
If it's possible to prevent a democracy from imposing its majority-moral's then you no longer have a true democracy.
The will of the people and all that.
If Florida ( or any other state ) decides to be the "state of intolerance" isnt it they're right as a democracy ? Wouldn't it be intolerant/immoral to not allow them.
When it's good it's called "Democracy". When it's bad, it's called "Mob Rule." :P
The United States is not a democracy. It's a Republic.
The US also has a bill of rights. This keeps the majority from inflicting total will on the minority (unless they amend the constitution first.)
It also brings up an interesting question - what happens when the majority is wrong?
-
I do not believe that society should be empowered to make individual decisions for people when there's no direct and immediate threat to others' life, liberty or property.
Whats your viewpoint on a recent news story where a group/individuals are being prosecuted in Germany ( I believe ) for owning Pornographic Images of Children that were computer generated. No actual children involved.
I have to say that I was struggeling with that. I find it horrid and detestable yet no children were hurt or involved. Now in theory it could lead in a chain of events to actual child abuse. Merely owning a computer generated image was a crime. Would that be a justified prosecution? The Germans obviously think so.
Hmm...
-
It also brings up an interesting question - what happens when the majority is wrong?
Your stuffed. They elect the "wrong" officials who enforce the "wrong" laws.
You get into the problem of trying to define "wrong". If you have no solid "moral" standpoint then your only position to judge what is moral and what can be tolerated is to take a majority-cultural view. The majority-cultral view has no reason not to move towards perscecuting minorities.
( My brain is starting to hurt )
-
Whats your viewpoint on a recent news story where a group/individuals are being prosecuted in Germany ( I believe ) for owning Pornographic Images of Children that were computer generated. No actual children involved.
I believe they should not be prosecuted. If there are no victims, there is no crime.
Now, the logical fallacy here would be to extend that statement into an assumption that I endorse the art itself, or the people who create and buy it. I haven't seen the images in question, and I don't know the precise circumstances, so I won't say anything definitive about it; but I do think it ought to be possible for most people to distinguish a difference between "I do not approve of that" and "That should be illegal."
-
I don't really want to vear off and go there, but both of those things have a direct and relevant impact on society as a whole and on each person in it. (In the case of abortion, for instance, we have about 45 million fewer people under 30 in the US than we would have had without it. Quite an impact, on everyone.)
This is false. In every thread about abortion I've ever seen come up on blogs where women are able to actually talk about theier experiences, they talk about the kids they had later *because* of their abortion. Plenty of people are able to talk about only being born because of abortion -- because their mother didn't have a kid with person X that they were dating when they were 20, the mother was able to get into a more stable situation and have two or three kids that wouldn't otherwise have been born with the man she eventually married.
Abortion rates have been relatively static through time. When abortion was illegal, it was still practiced at about the same rate as before Roe v. Wade. The pattern of abortion was different -- women were more likely to have the kids they wanted, and then start aborting later fetuses, rather than aborting first and having the kids later -- but the rate of abortion has remained relatively stable. It just used to be more likely to kill the woman.
So, if anything, the effect on the population is to have is more living and non-mutilated women.
-
If there are no victims, there is no crime.
I actually don't believe they should be prosecuted either.
However, I doubt this statement of reasoning would hold up as an absolute.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong -- I really think I may be -- but when you say socialism doesn't work, don't you mean communism doesn't work? Democratic socialism certainly seems to work. Sweden = works.
-
If there are no victims, there is no crime.
I actually don't believe they should be prosecuted either.
However, I doubt this statement of reasoning would hold up as an absolute.
For an example of a crime with no victim: attempted murder. I tried to shoot someone, but my aim was bad. I would say that I still committed a crime.
-
But in that case, trauma (at least of a psychological nature) is still being inflicted (or attempted) on an actual person.
I don't like the situation in Germany but I can see where Steve and palimpsest are coming from. I'm not sure I completely agree but the arguement they make is pretty compelling if there's no victim. It still makes my stomach clutch up, though.
-
Too many posts here to respond to everything, but here's a try:
In fact, I'd love to get your opinion on Steven Levitt's research correlating Roe vs. Wade with a precipitious drop in nationwide urban crime in the past 30 years. Statistics indicate that access to legal abortion has likely made the country much safer. (It sounds extraordinarily callous, but the demographics are pretty clear: all of those people who don't exist? The vast majority of them would have been racial minorities, in poverty, undereducated, with very little opportunity for advancement. And that means crime and violence.)
I think you should really take a step back and consider what you're saying here. Do you really think that arbitarily eliminating whole demographic groups is a good way to control crime? By that logic, the safest street is one with no people at all. You should also consider the nature of the judgement you are making by saying that these missing people wouldn't have ammounted to anything anyway. Do you really think it's right to make such an extreme and sweeping judgement on the value and potential of a life based upon race or the circumstances of birth? Think about the implications here.
You can only tolerate that which you dislike or disapprove of. If you enjoy or approve of something, then terms "tolerant" and "intolerant" have no application.
Right on. An important point, and well made with your examples.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What does that mean, exactly?
Literally it means that if I want someone to give me $1000, I should give out $1000. That would be morally correct.
It means that if I want someone to compliment me, I should compliment them. That would also be morally correct.
It means if I like beer, I should buy one for my friend, even if he doesn't like beer or doesn't want to buy me one. Still morally correct.
It means that if I want to see my wife have sex with my best friend, I should have sex with my best friend's wife. Still morally correct.
The golden rule, taken as an absolute, is not black and white. The golden rule does nothing to consider the desires of others and can swiftly become a very selfish ideal.
This is really kind of silly. This is the same kind of logic that says, "Mom told me not to punch or slap my sister, but I can still kick her." Applying any rule or principle requires intelligent analysis of the situation and adaptation to it. It requires an active mind. The person in your examples is acting like a thoughtless computer that blindly follows a program in useless loops.
If we are to apply the Golden Rule, then we must use our intelligence to determine what specific actions are required. I enjoy having generosity shown to me, therefore I should be generous. I like people to be honest with me, therefore I should be honest with others. A legalistic, tit-for-tat approach like the one you outline is both impossible and foolish, and it isn't what the Golden Rule means.
That said, I maintain that it is black and white. The person is your examples is in the wrong: He is subjecting those around to irritating and injurious behaviors for the sake of his own egotism. He wouldn't want someone else to treat him that way. To follow the Golden Rule, he should buy his buddy a beverage the buddy actually wants. He needs to use his intelligence to determine how the Rule applies in the unique situations he finds himself in, just as with any rule or principle.
How is morality relative?
What one person thinks is immoral may not be what another person thinks is immoral
But isn't that the whole idea of morality? Different people have different opinions, but morality transcend those opinions and gives everyone a common standard. If morality is merely a matter of individual opinions, then "morality" means nothing at all. Morality that does not apply objectively is not morality at all.
-------
Leaving it there. (In theory, I'm at work right now.)
-
*snip*
If we are to apply the Golden Rule, then we must use our intelligence to determine what specific actions are required. I enjoy having generosity shown to me, therefore I should be generous. I like people to be honest with me, therefore I should be honest with others. A legalistic, tit-for-tat approach like the one you outline is both impossible and foolish, and it isn't what the Golden Rule means.
That said, I maintain that it is black and white. The person is your examples is in the wrong: He is subjecting those around to irritating and injurious behaviors for the sake of his own egotism. He wouldn't want someone else to treat him that way. To follow the Golden Rule, he should buy his buddy a beverage the buddy actually wants. He needs to use his intelligence to determine how the Rule applies in the unique situations he finds himself in, just as with any rule or principle.
How is morality relative?
What one person thinks is immoral may not be what another person thinks is immoral
But isn't that the whole idea of morality? Different people have different opinions, but morality transcend those opinions and gives everyone a common standard. If morality is merely a matter of individual opinions, then "morality" means nothing at all. Morality that does not apply objectively is not morality at all.
*Snip*
I think the issue is the "black and white" comment. I don't think we can agree 100% on morality the way we can on mathematics. That's the problem. Maybe, we can come to a majority consensus on killing, rape, etc (and there are some cultures that don't necessarily except these morals, I might add). But the real problems with calling morality black and white comes when we get to other issues like abortion or gay marriage. One person believes one thing and another disagrees. That's why these are hot topics. Therefore I don't think it's black and white, because there is no absolute consensus the way there is for 2+2=4. And I don't think there will ever be, not in this life anyway.
-
In every thread about abortion I've ever seen come up on blogs where women are able to actually talk about theier experiences, they talk about the kids they had later *because* of their abortion. Plenty of people are able to talk about only being born because of abortion -- because their mother didn't have a kid with person X that they were dating when they were 20, the mother was able to get into a more stable situation and have two or three kids that wouldn't otherwise have been born with the man she eventually married.
I hate to be dismissive, but that is pure speculation. There is no way to accurately tell what would have happened if an abortion (or any other event) had not taken place. 45 million missing people is not speculation: It's a fact.
-
I hate to be dismissive, but that is pure speculation. There is no way to accurately tell what would have happened if an abortion (or any other event) had not taken place. 45 million missing people is not speculation: It's a fact.
Assuming that 45 million abortions = a population of 45 million less is a massive oversimplification - by your own statement.
-
How is morality relative?
What one person thinks is immoral may not be what another person thinks is immoral
But isn't that the whole idea of morality? Different people have different opinions, but morality transcend those opinions and gives everyone a common standard. If morality is merely a matter of individual opinions, then "morality" means nothing at all. Morality that does not apply objectively is not morality at all.
One opinion "transcending" another sounds like a euphemism for "forcing it on those who disagree."
Everything outside of mathematic is subjective in some way because everything not mathematical is based on someone's views, values or opinions.
Therefore, morality is subjective.
-
Applying any rule or principle requires intelligent analysis of the situation and adaptation to it. It requires an active mind.
so to misquote a movie - "it's not really a rule, more like a guideline."
That said, I maintain that it is black and white.
A black and white rule that requires my active mind to properly interpret based on the situation? That's about as self-contradictory as you are likely to get.
-
I hate to be dismissive, but that is pure speculation. There is no way to accurately tell what would have happened if an abortion (or any other event) had not taken place. 45 million missing people is not speculation: It's a fact.
Name your source, please.
-
I think you should really take a step back and consider what you're saying here. Do you really think that arbitarily eliminating whole demographic groups is a good way to control crime?
I'm not suggesting it as an action plan people should discuss and then adopt. I'm saying that there is statistical evidence that it happened, as an unintended consequence of a large number of individual decisions. No single woman said "I'm going to have an abortion to control crime." But many women had abortions as an alternative to having children they didn't have the resources to care for, and as a side effect, urban crime has been on the decrease.
I'm not advocating abortion here. I happen to consider it weakly unethical. (I explained my theory of "strong" vs. "weak" ethics in a different post some while back; I don't have the energy to go into it again.) But if you're going to argue against it on pragmatic social grounds, as you attempted, there's a more complex picture painted than a simple "It's devastating society." Very little in this world has consequences that are purely good or purely bad.
But isn't that the whole idea of morality? Different people have different opinions, but morality transcend those opinions and gives everyone a common standard. If morality is merely a matter of individual opinions, then "morality" means nothing at all. Morality that does not apply objectively is not morality at all.
My main observation here is that you seem to be using a definition of "objective" that is awfully... Well, I was going to say "subjective" just to be symmetrical, but "selective" is probably more like it. What is this objective source that should, in theory, be keeping the entire human race on the same page?
And please don't say "the Bible." It cannot possibly have escaped your notice that different people have different ideas of what the Bible means (there have been wars and movies about that too), nor that there are moral creeds in it that nobody takes seriously anymore. There's plenty of death and slavery and racism and sexism and sheer bloody-mindedness in the Bible, alongside the love and the goodness and the wisdom. Not to mention that the contents of the Bible itself were decided by committee in a highly political process many centuries ago. To say, "Yeah, but we've picked these good bits as the ones that are important" -- is that really being objective?
(If that's not where you intended to go, then my apologies for the presumption. I was just hoping to save some time.)
Please don't misunderstand: I'm not anti-religion, at least as a generality, and I'm certainly not anti-morality. I like people with strong ideas of morality. I like people with strong ideas of good behavior, who live by those ideas and are good toward other people, regardless of where those ideas came from. The danger is when that conviction leads to hubris, and to believing that one has all the answers for everyone.
-
Name your source, please.
Centers for Disease Control. Here's a graph from Wikipedia showing CDC statistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Number_of_Abortions_in_US.jpg
Average a little more than 1 million legal abortions per year since Roe v. Wade, which was 35 years ago, makes a little over 35 million abortions. So, to be more accurate, I will ammend my statement and say "between 35 and 45 million missing people." (Pardon if I engaged in a slight exageration.)
-
Replying to SFEley (I don't want to waste space quoting everything from his last post),
I had not gone so far as to advocate a particular source of moral authority or even a specific system of morality. What I said was that if morality does not apply objectively to everyone in every situation, then is meaningless and there's no point even having a word in the dictionary for it.
Take a moral principle like "be tolerant." If it is a moral principle, then everyone must be tollerant all the time, and if they are not they are acting immorally. If one is free to be tollerant or not as one pleases on any given day, then it isn't a moral principal at all and it doesn't make any sense to talk about violating it.
Or take the principles that guide our discussion here on this board. We are to be repectful to one another and not insult and call names. But if we acknowledge circumstances in which it is okay to call each other names, then the principle of respect is meaningless. If I were to start tossing out racist epithets or saying everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi, the moderators would be all over me for breaking the rules, and a plea that "the rules are subjective" would fall on deaf ears. A law that can be broken at will is not a law in any relevant sense.
So I say that subjective morality is not morality. We can argue for or against the validity of morality or of moral systems. We can say "Religion-X has a bad moral system" and we can say "morality is bunk," but we can't say morality is subjective: That moots the concept.
-
I had not gone so far as to advocate a particular source of moral authority or even a specific system of morality. What I said was that if morality does not apply objectively to everyone in every situation, then is meaningless and there's no point even having a word in the dictionary for it.
I disagree with your basic premise, and I think you have failed to support it. I think the tautology you present is a very naïve worldview, putting ideals ahead of utility. Morality is not hard-edged and universal. It is subjective and complex and fuzzy and murky and multi-pathed and occasionally barely there at all. Yet it is still useful. People can commit good in the world without agreeing with each other about what 'good' is. They can commit good without even thinking about it. We know this because it happens everywhere, all the time. No one's ever come up with an absolute definition for good and evil behavior that can be universally understood and accepted without argument, yet somehow the human race muddles on, and even manages to moves forward more often than backward.
I respect that you want to act well. I respect that you act upon your principles, even if I disagree with some of them. But you are not presenting a real argument here. Western philosophy is centuries ahead of you on this; I would suggest an overview. (In your case I would recommend starting with Kierkegaard. I think you'd like him.)
Meanwhile, I for one am going to continue to use the word 'moral' without feeling like I have to be in agreement with every other human being about its usage. I will make a best effort to use it -- and act upon it -- appropriately as I see fit. My goal is to make the world better, as I see it, more often than I make it worse. Not perfect, but better.
As an aside, but not a total non sequitur, this is also exactly the way I approach the word 'love.' I don't have to agree with everyone else about what it means; I just have to make a best effort to use it properly as I see it, and to do good with it. Love and morality have an awful lot to do with each other.
-
I happen to consider it weakly unethical.
Just FTR, I consider the belief that abortion is weakly or strongly unethical to be, itself, weakly unethical. :)
-
Morality is probably the most personal thing a person has, because it is with that morality that they view the world. Now, that person could believe that their morality is a universal morality and that everyone should act according to theirs. But they don't.
Moral relativism is just accepting the fact that Bob thinks that graffiti is art, Susan thinks it's all crime, and Roger thinks that it can be art (Banksy vs. the kid scrawling their name or a gang name on a wall).
~~~~~
As to the abortion sidebar: I've got a well-paged Freakonomics on my bookshelf, and the point is that the potential mothers know if they can raise a child well at the time, and if they don't think they can, or can't afford to, then they abort. So it's potential moms deciding if they could be good moms, and choosing to abort based on that measure. Some give the kids up for adoption, but if every woman/couple that got an abortion tried to do that... well, the state would probably go bankrupt.
Look, no one likes abortion. Making it so that less happen by teaching proper sexual education is a necessary and morally right thing to do. That doesn't mean abortion is morally wrong. I think it's a good tool and that needless pontificating over it's morality skips over the fact that it's often the best, or only, option. I certainly think it's better than having a child you can't take care of. Or end up abandoning.
-
Abortion is a moral good.
http://pandagon.net/2007/02/22/time-to-open-up-the-overton-window-some-more-abortion-is-a-moral-good/
-
There are three separate conversational threads here:
1. Tolerance, and it's evolution over time
2. Morality
3. Abortion
I think I could split the thread to separate Tolerance out from "morality and abortion" but I can't disentangle the messages between topics 2 and 3, which is a problem, as topic 3 never goes anywhere and just gets everyone upset.
Could I suggest a reframing of the discussion to consider other aspects of morality besides abortion? I fear if it continues down the path it is on this very interesting threads will degenerate and become locked.
-
I agree that this is getting convoluted and muddled. Topic 2 I think would make a good start to a new thread, if anyone's still interested, and topic 3 was mostly a tangent, but I think this is a great place to get back to topic 1, because we now we have a good case study: This thread.
I think this thread has been a good illustration of (my idea) of tolerance. There has been a lot of disagreement, and lot of opposing viewpoints, but everyone has been allowed to speak and everyone has been listened to. We have not agreed. We have not acknowledged that our viewpoints are all equal. Far from it: SFEley thinks my viewpoints are “naive” and he “disagrees with [my] basic premise.” He thinks I’m totally wrong, but he has allowed my to continue posting. He hasn’t tried to get me kicked off or used mockery to shut me up.
To me, this is what tolerance looks like, and it’s great. We disagree, but we respect each other enough to let each other speak, and we are not so arrogant as to refuse to listen. And we don’t engage in the intellectual dishonesty of pretending to agree when we do not.
I think this whole discussion has been a demonstration of tolerance from all parties.
Any thoughts?
-
I think this whole discussion has been a demonstration of tolerance from all parties.
Any thoughts?
I'll go with that. Good point, Mr. Tweedy.
-
Yes, there are various points of view which, in themselves, are intolerant.
It is intolerant and bigoted even to believe that interracial couples should not get married. It's racist, pure and simple. Racism is not tolerant.
Men who believe that women just don't have a head for science are intolerant of women; whites who believe that black people just aren't as smart as whites are intolerant of minorities (and massively compensating); people who believe it's acceptable for homosexuals to be fired because of their orientation are intolerant of gays.
Don't confuse tolerance with civility. It is possible to say "All women are liars" without using swear words, but it's still a deeply offensive and intolerant statement. I am not required to respond to basic attacks on my humanity, or the humanity of others, with "tolerance."
-
I think this thread has been a good illustration of (my idea) of tolerance. There has been a lot of disagreement, and lot of opposing viewpoints, but everyone has been allowed to speak and everyone has been listened to.
I don't know, taken as a statistical sample of the Escape Pod forum posters, there's an extremely narrow slice of people posting in this thread. I would hardly jump up and say "Yay! Everyone's expressed their viewpoints! And we all listened! We're so tolerant and fabulous!"
Now, there can be any number of reasons why people didn't post on this thread: maybe people don't have opinions, couldn't care less about the topic, don't come here to try to have discussions on the nature of morality, have had an exceptionally busy couple of weeks, etc. It's even possible people felt their views would not be tolerated, and didn't express them for that reason.
Still, I find it troubling to have you stand up and announce, "Yay everyone who had an opinion expressed it," and move forward patting everyone who posted on the back because I don't buy the bulk of people on this board have no opinion on the topic, and the bulk of people have not expressed their point of view thus far.
So no, not going with this thread as a wondrous good example of tolerance just yet.
-
Yes, this thread is an example of tolerance, but only because it is run by benevelent dictators. If this were a pure democracy, those with unpopular opinions would be voted out and their immoral opinions would be suppressed. Ironically, that would leave the majority with no one to argue with. :P
Seriously,
You and I have equal ability to express our opinions in this forum. That is a Good Thing.
Obviously, we disagree on some issues.
However, I don't feel as if I have to "hallow" or give "reverence and respect" to your position. I don't feel I have to "change [my] beliefs to match [yours]." or "alter my morality, my religious beliefs and my view of my own sexuality in subservience to [yours]."
-
What Anarkey said.
Which is part of what I was suggesting in my comment, although not all of it.
-
If this were a pure democracy, those with unpopular opinions would be voted out and their immoral opinions would be suppressed. Ironically, that would leave the majority with no one to argue with. :P
Not necessarily. I would never vote to supress or censor any opinion, no matter how great my disagreement. The majority could vote to allow the minority a voice, as they should.
However, I don't feel as if I have to "hallow" or give "reverence and respect" to your position. I don't feel I have to "change [my] beliefs to match [yours]." or "alter my morality, my religious beliefs and my view of my own sexuality in subservience to [yours]."
Cool. That matches strait up with what I think tollerance is. No one is forced to alter their beliefs in subservience to anyone else's. We disagree and ackwoledge that it; we don't pretend to agree or say the other guy has a good point if we don't honestly think he does. But at the same time we understand that we don't have the right to compel another person to believe as we do.
-
If this were a pure democracy, those with unpopular opinions would be voted out and their immoral opinions would be suppressed. Ironically, that would leave the majority with no one to argue with. :P
Not necessarily. I would never vote to supress or censor any opinion, no matter how great my disagreement. The majority could vote to allow the minority a voice, as they should.
There is no guarantee that others would vote that way.
However, I don't feel as if I have to "hallow" or give "reverence and respect" to your position. I don't feel I have to "change [my] beliefs to match [yours]." or "alter my morality, my religious beliefs and my view of my own sexuality in subservience to [yours]."
Cool. That matches strait up with what I think tollerance is. No one is forced to alter their beliefs in subservience to anyone else's. We disagree and ackwoledge that it; we don't pretend to agree or say the other guy has a good point if we don't honestly think he does. But at the same time we understand that we don't have the right to compel another person to believe as we do.
[/quote]
So.... you're saying you are NOT tolerant of Gay Marriage?
-
No, that's not whay I was saying... How did you pull that out of my statement?
-
No, that's not whay I was saying... How did you pull that out of my statement?
Sorry - made too many leaps of logic for own good there. I was incorrect in what I said and I apologize for that.
Let me elaborate.
In the other thread you wrote:
Homosexuals are already completely free to live their lifestyle and have access to the same legal rights as heterosexuals, including the oft-bemoaned inheritance and medical consent rights. These arrangements can be made with a stop at any law office: A wedding is not required.
First off, as far as legal rights go, this is not true. IIRC, a gay couple can't file their taxes as "married filing jointly," and can't collect on the other's social security benefits. Secondly, why should a gay couple have to pay a lawyer to obtain rights that a hetero couple can get for next to nothing? Also, thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, a gay union in one state is not automatically recognized in another state. I don't pretend to be an expert on this issue, but it's obvious to me that the two sides are not equal.
(As a side note, why does sex have to enter into this at all? Why can't one person simply designate another person as his/her significant partner and have the two of them obtain that legal status?)
The only reason for homosexuals to be able to marry is to give them saction, for society to formally state that their behavior is good, healthy, moral, etc, and furthmore to hallow it and give it reverence and respect. This is a demand for far more than tolerance: It is a demand that each of us change our beliefs to match theirs.
Comparing this thread to gay marriage, each of us in this thread has the same "legal" standing with the same rights an advantages. No one is being forced to modify their views or values in order to post (though lots of attempts of persuasion are going on. :P ). Each is allowed to express themselves without risk of another poster restricting that right or ability.
With gay marriage, both sides do not have the same legal standing and one side does and is restricting the views and values of the other.
So, if his thread as an example of tolerance, then how we treat gay marriage is an example of intolerance.
-
"So, if his thread as an example of tolerance, then how we treat gay marriage is an example of intolerance."
Which is why I'm deeply suspicious of this conversation. These discussions of tolerance tend to leave power out of the equation, doing something like putting "I support legal opposition of gay marriage" and "I support gay marriage" on equal footing.
These are not equal statements.
If tolerance is the act of respecting others views, and not interfering with their ability to practice them, then the legalization of gay marriage is the tolerant view. It does not require heterosexuals to git it on with members of their own sex. It allows people who practice homosexuality, and who believe that homosexuality is not immoral, to marry and live their lives sans interference.
The position of opposition to gay marriage is, itself, inherently intolerant.
Stephen Colbert did a bit on this the other day -- the intolerant are the poor, long-suffering group that no one will tolerate. My "tolerance" ends when you're putting your legal fist in my face, or the face of those I love*.
--
*Which is also where abortion comes in, since making it illegal overrides women's bodily sovereignty in ways we'd never permit for men's bodily sovereignty to be overriden. No one is forced to donate a kidney to a dying child; even if fetii were people, they would be no more entitled to use a woman's body for survival than anyone else. However, it's impossible to prove that they are people without resorting to arguments of ensoulment, which are an attempt to legislate religion -- fundamentally intolerant of anyone who does not share those religious views.
-
I had hoped to stear this discussion away from any specific moral issue, but since this specific topic (and my opinion of it) has been brought up:
I'll say again that gay marriage is not about tollerance. You're talking apples and oranges. There are thousands and millions of groups and practices that are not formally recognized by our government as being good or bad, legal or illegal, and homosexuals are one such group. Homosexuality is currently tollerated: No one stops them from doing what they believe is right for them to do. Recognizing marriage is a big step beyond mere tollerance: It is endorsement. It is legal sanction. It is a proclomation by the state saying "this is good" and "we support this."
Using the analogy of this forum: I am currently permitted to believe and express ideas that other people think are stupid and crazy. I am tollerated. I can say my bit and nobody sends me letter bombs for it. But suppose there were some kind of rule going into this forum that stated that my opinion is as good as yours and that you must accept and embrace my viewpoint if you are going to post here. Suppose Escape Artists formally endorsed my opinions.
Gay marriage is like that: It is a state proclomation of the moral rightness of homosexuality. I am against the state making such a proclomation. I am for tollerance, but I am not for endorsement. If you think the state should endorse homosexuality, then make your case, but don't call it "tollerance," because it isn't.
More than that, even, is the fact that gay marriage changes the deffinition of extant marriages. When I got married 4 years ago, I entered both a relationship and a legal contract with certain terms attached. Gay marriage legislation changes the words on the contract that I already signed and agreed to. My beliefs are not compatible with homosexual practice, and if the deffinition of "marriage" is altered to include homosexual practice, then the deffinition of "marriage" is no longer compatible with my beliefs.
We are not talking about simply giving homosexuals extra rights. We are talking about throwing out the deffinition of marriage and writing a new one, and those of us who view our marriages with great sanctity suffer injury from this.
I frankly do not understand why this is a hard idea to grasp, but to try to make it more clear, I'll resort to one more analogy:
Let's posit some arbitrary group, say the ficticious Central Illinois Go Club. To be a part of this club you have to live in central IL and play go every Wednesday night at the clubhouse. We who are in the club have agreed to its rules and enjoy certain privledge and status because of our affiliation. Good for us.
But then a group of chess players comes in and demands to be part of the go club. We say "Sorry, but we play go here. If you want to play chess next door, go ahead, and if you want to start your own club, we're fine with that." But the chess players are not satisfied. They say "No, we demand to be part of the go club." We say, "Uh, sorry, but, you see, if we let you play chess in here, then it won't really be a go club anymore. So, if you wouldn't mind, please go play your chess somewhere else. I know of a vacant building on 4th street you could use for a clubhouse." The chess players repond, "No! We will be part of the go club, and, moreover, we are outraged at the intollerance you go players show for our game! You're a lot chess-o-phobes."
The chess players then file a lawsuit to force the Go Club to allow chess at their meetings.
That's how I feel, and that's how I see it. If gays want to be gay, fine. If they want to live together in loving, manogamous relationships, good for them (and they can do it on my street too). If laws are passed giving them all the legal privlidges of marriage, I can tollerate that. But if they want to change the deffinition of my marriage to suit their beliefs, that's not fine. Leave me alone, and thank you very much.
-
Your marriage is in no way threatened, except insofar as you make your business to feel threatened. You are being intolerant of gay people. You are denying them rights that you possess.
-
I had hoped to stear this discussion away from any specific moral issue, but since this specific topic (and my opinion of it) has been brought up:
I'll say again that gay marriage is not about tollerance. You're talking apples and oranges. There are thousands and millions of groups and practices that are not formally recognized by our government as being good or bad, legal or illegal, and homosexuals are one such group. Homosexuality is currently tollerated: No one stops them from doing what they believe is right for them to do. Recognizing marriage is a big step beyond mere tollerance: It is endorsement. It is legal sanction. It is a proclomation by the state saying "this is good" and "we support this."
Yes. Yes they do. They stop a loving couple of consenting adults from being married: Legally and Spiritually. This causes considerable conflict for gay Christian couples who are forced to live in sin.
Gay marriage is like that: It is a state proclomation of the moral rightness of homosexuality. I am against the state making such a proclomation. I am for tollerance, but I am not for endorsement. If you think the state should endorse homosexuality, then make your case, but don't call it "tollerance," because it isn't.
No, the banning of gay marriage is the government stepping in to moral issues. Morality is best argued by the church and the parents. Laws that say who can and can't enter in to legal contract together is a terrible step away from freedom. You are welcome to argue that Adam and Steve shouldn't be married in the eyes of the Christian god, but that shouldn't make a bit of difference to the president or congress.
Before laws were passed that stated that marriage was between a man and a woman there weren't laws against homosexual marriage. The government had to actively BLOCK gay marriage. I'm not suggesting that state or federal governments should advocate gay marriage (or straight for that matter), just not block it.
We are not talking about simply giving homosexuals extra rights. We are talking about throwing out the deffinition of marriage and writing a new one, and those of us who view our marriages with great sanctity suffer injury from this.
How, in any way, does the signing of a legal contract between two adults ruin the sanctity of marriage?
Let's posit some arbitrary group, say the ficticious Central Illinois Go Club. To be a part of this club you have to live in central IL and play go every Wednesday night at the clubhouse. We who are in the club have agreed to its rules and enjoy certain privledge and status because of our affiliation. Good for us.
But then a group of chess players comes in and demands to be part of the go club. We say "Sorry, but we play go here. If you want to play chess next door, go ahead, and if you want to start your own club, we're fine with that." But the chess players are not satisfied. They say "No, we demand to be part of the go club." We say, "Uh, sorry, but, you see, if we let you play chess in here, then it won't really be a go club anymore. So, if you wouldn't mind, please go play your chess somewhere else. I know of a vacant building on 4th street you could use for a clubhouse." The chess players repond, "No! We will be part of the go club, and, moreover, we are outraged at the intollerance you go players show for our game! You're a lot chess-o-phobes."
The chess players then file a lawsuit to force the Go Club to allow chess at their meetings.
That's how I feel, and that's how I see it. If gays want to be gay, fine. If they want to live together in loving, manogamous relationships, good for them (and they can do it on my street too). If laws are passed giving them all the legal privlidges of marriage, I can tollerate that. But if they want to change the deffinition of my marriage to suit their beliefs, that's not fine. Leave me alone, and thank you very much.
Lets turn this around:
Your parents play Go. Your brother plays Go. Your sister plays Go. Your uncles and cousins, and neighbors, and pen pals play go. The President plays Go all the time. Your favorite sports stars play Go. Everyone on TV plays Go. You play Chess.
You've played Go, and it's just not your thing. You like Chess, you've always liked chess and you will always like chess.
All the Go players are members of the Greater Universal Alliance of Go Players, and only Go players are allowed in there. As a member of GUAGP you get special privileges, just for playing Go. You don't have to be good at it, or play often, or you can play way too much and cheat at it, but as long as you play Go, you get the privileges. Those privileges you are entitled to are, say, $5000 a year, a new car, and a membership card that lets you use the hotel swimming pools anywhere in the world.
Everyone plays go, so everyone gets the $5000, and the car, and they all hang out at the pool. Big deal. Everyone does it. Some people don't even care that they get the benefits, they just love playing Go so much that they'd do it with out the perks. But, you know from your childhood that not everyone plays Go. Some weirdoes like to play other games. Some people who just aren't Ok.
You're one of those people.
You're an outcast because you don't like to play Go.
A few people tell you that playing chess is "wrong", but people look at you funny, and they don't like talking to you. Although there aren't any laws saying that playing chess is illegal, there are laws saying that not playing Go isn't ok.
So you don't get the $5000 everyone else gets. And you don't get the new car everyone else has. And you don't get to hang out at the hotel pools like everyone else. You’re told that that’s fair. Go players stand around and say "What's wrong? It’s still legal for you to play chess, isn’t it? You're still allowed to drive a car, aren't you? You can still have a job. You can swim in the ponds and public swimming pools, just not the hotel pools like
normal people do. So why are you upset?"
Is that fair?
Is that tolerant?
-
*SNIP*
More than that, even, is the fact that gay marriage changes the deffinition of extant marriages. When I got married 4 years ago, I entered both a relationship and a legal contract with certain terms attached. Gay marriage legislation changes the words on the contract that I already signed and agreed to. My beliefs are not compatible with homosexual practice, and if the deffinition of "marriage" is altered to include homosexual practice, then the deffinition of "marriage" is no longer compatible with my beliefs.
We are not talking about simply giving homosexuals extra rights. We are talking about throwing out the deffinition of marriage and writing a new one, and those of us who view our marriages with great sanctity suffer injury from this.
I frankly do not understand why this is a hard idea to grasp, but to try to make it more clear, I'll resort to one more analogy:
Let's posit some arbitrary group, say the ficticious Central Illinois Go Club. To be a part of this club you have to live in central IL and play go every Wednesday night at the clubhouse. We who are in the club have agreed to its rules and enjoy certain privledge and status because of our affiliation. Good for us.
But then a group of chess players comes in and demands to be part of the go club. We say "Sorry, but we play go here. If you want to play chess next door, go ahead, and if you want to start your own club, we're fine with that." But the chess players are not satisfied. They say "No, we demand to be part of the go club." We say, "Uh, sorry, but, you see, if we let you play chess in here, then it won't really be a go club anymore. So, if you wouldn't mind, please go play your chess somewhere else. I know of a vacant building on 4th street you could use for a clubhouse." The chess players repond, "No! We will be part of the go club, and, moreover, we are outraged at the intollerance you go players show for our game! You're a lot chess-o-phobes."
The chess players then file a lawsuit to force the Go Club to allow chess at their meetings.
That's how I feel, and that's how I see it. If gays want to be gay, fine. If they want to live together in loving, manogamous relationships, good for them (and they can do it on my street too). If laws are passed giving them all the legal privlidges of marriage, I can tollerate that. But if they want to change the deffinition of my marriage to suit their beliefs, that's not fine. Leave me alone, and thank you very much.
I don't understand how the contract you signed when you were married is being changed. Is the government sending out new marriage licenses to everyone who was previously married once gay marriages become legal?
What are the personal effects this has on *your* marriage?
-
I had hoped to stear this discussion away from any specific moral issue, but since this specific topic (and my opinion of it) has been brought up:
I'll say again that gay marriage is not about tollerance. You're talking apples and oranges. There are thousands and millions of groups and practices that are not formally recognized by our government as being good or bad, legal or illegal, and homosexuals are one such group. Homosexuality is currently tollerated: No one stops them from doing what they believe is right for them to do. Recognizing marriage is a big step beyond mere tollerance: It is endorsement. It is legal sanction. It is a proclomation by the state saying "this is good" and "we support this."
To me, this is the step in your logic that does not follow.
Legalizing gay marriage is not saying "this is good." It is saying "this is allowed." At most, it is saying "we sill stop anyone from stopping you from doing this." Endorsing it, promoting it or encouraging it would require the gov't to give gay people an advantage over hetero people, like giving them an extra checkbox on their tax return.
Using the analogy of this forum: I am currently permitted to believe and express ideas that other people think are stupid and crazy. I am tollerated. I can say my bit and nobody sends me letter bombs for it. But suppose there were some kind of rule going into this forum that stated that my opinion is as good as yours and that you must accept and embrace my viewpoint if you are going to post here. Suppose Escape Artists formally endorsed my opinions.
Gay marriage is like that: It is a state proclomation of the moral rightness of homosexuality. I am against the state making such a proclomation. I am for tollerance, but I am not for endorsement. If you think the state should endorse homosexuality, then make your case, but don't call it "tollerance," because it isn't.
Again, this relies on the previous point that I think does not follow.
More than that, even, is the fact that gay marriage changes the deffinition of extant marriages. When I got married 4 years ago, I entered both a relationship and a legal contract with certain terms attached. Gay marriage legislation changes the words on the contract that I already signed and agreed to.
how?
My beliefs are not compatible with homosexual practice, and if the deffinition of "marriage" is altered to include homosexual practice, then the deffinition of "marriage" is no longer compatible with my beliefs.
We are not talking about simply giving homosexuals extra rights. We are talking about throwing out the deffinition of marriage and writing a new one, and those of us who view our marriages with great sanctity suffer injury from this.
We are not talking about giving them extra rights at all - only giving them the rights that straight people already have.
I frankly do not understand why this is a hard idea to grasp, but to try to make it more clear, I'll resort to one more analogy:
Let's posit some arbitrary group, say the ficticious Central Illinois Go Club. To be a part of this club you have to live in central IL and play go every Wednesday night at the clubhouse. We who are in the club have agreed to its rules and enjoy certain privledge and status because of our affiliation. Good for us.
But then a group of chess players comes in and demands to be part of the go club. We say "Sorry, but we play go here. If you want to play chess next door, go ahead, and if you want to start your own club, we're fine with that." But the chess players are not satisfied. They say "No, we demand to be part of the go club." We say, "Uh, sorry, but, you see, if we let you play chess in here, then it won't really be a go club anymore. So, if you wouldn't mind, please go play your chess somewhere else. I know of a vacant building on 4th street you could use for a clubhouse." The chess players repond, "No! We will be part of the go club, and, moreover, we are outraged at the intollerance you go players show for our game! You're a lot chess-o-phobes."
The chess players then file a lawsuit to force the Go Club to allow chess at their meetings.
I think your analogy is flawed.
A closer analogy would be if the long established go club, whose members were recognized as a special group which entitled to legal advantages, objected to the chess club forming so they could get the same advantages.
That's how I feel, and that's how I see it. If gays want to be gay, fine. If they want to live together in loving, manogamous relationships, good for them (and they can do it on my street too). If laws are passed giving them all the legal privlidges of marriage, I can tollerate that. But if they want to change the deffinition of my marriage to suit their beliefs, that's not fine. Leave me alone, and thank you very much.
So is it the term "marriage" that you object to? I understand that the term "marriage" has a religious overtone and I don't think that churches should be forced into marrying people against their will. I, for one, have no problem with someone coming up with a different term for a committed relationship between two people - regardless of their orientation - as long as both groups have the same legal rights.
Yes, I realize that this smacks of the "separate but equal" philosophy we used to deal with up until the 1960's, but I think it would be much harder (though not impossible) to segregate people based on sexual orientation - at least much harder than it was based on color.
-
So is it the term "marriage" that you object to? I understand that the term "marriage" has a religious overtone and I don't think that churches should be forced into marrying people against their will. I, for one, have no problem with someone coming up with a different term for a committed relationship between two people - regardless of their orientation - as long as both groups have the same legal rights.
Yes, I realize that this smacks of the "separate but equal" philosophy we used to deal with up until the 1960's, but I think it would be much harder (though not impossible) to segregate people based on sexual orientation - at least much harder than it was based on color.
There are plenty of people who aren't religious who are married. The word marriage may have some religious overtones but no one bars people who aren't religious from getting married. Why should people who are gay be treated any different? And there are also people who are gay and are religious. Some churches may choose not to marry them, but people who want to get married should be allowed to be married.
-
I don't think I can take everybody on once, logistically...
I will state, by way of defense, that my go club isn't trying to close down the chess club. We just want to play go in peace. There are people who want to abuse and oppress and even kill homosexuals: I'm not one of them. Homosexuals have been my boss at work, been my fellow students in school, eaten dinner in my house; one even owes me money. If, despite that, I still qualify as a homophobe, so be it.
------------
I guess I'll close with an example that, although it is not a logical argument, might help somebody understand how I view the issue.
First, think of how you, personally define yourself. What group do you take pride in belonging to? Your answer might be be "Christian" or "atheist" or "gay" or "feminist" or whatever, as long as it's important to you. We'll call that group "Alpha."
Now think of something that morally offendes you, personally. This could also be anything, so long as you believe it is wrong. We'll call this thing "X". Next imagine there is a group of people who not only do X but define themselves as "Xers," so that X is an indespensable part of their identity.
Once you've got set in your mind what Alpha and X are, imagine that the Xers are demanding that the deffinition of Alpha be changed to include them. In law and in common usage, the deffinitions of Alpha and Xer are going to be merged so that every Xer will henceforth be considered a part of group Alpha and members of group Alpha will be considered to be Xers.
Would you object to this change? Would objecting make you intollerant?
-
people who want to get married should be allowed to be married.
I'll pose this question to you, then (and to anyone else): Should there be any limitations on who is allowed to get married?
-
Yes. Yes they do. They stop a loving couple of consenting adults from being married: Legally and Spiritually. This causes considerable conflict for gay Christian couples who are forced to live in sin.
Your definition seems a little confused. You cant have Gay Christian Couples. Being actively Gay is a Sin according to Christian doctrine. In exactly the same way, and I mean exactly, you cant have a Thieving Hetrosexual Couple. Thieving is a sin.
Someone can be Gay and Christian provided they repent thier Sin and do not continue to be active Gay, in the same way a Thief can repent thier sin and do not continue to actively thieve.
If you continue to willingly knowingly Sin you have fallen away from Christianity.
So they are not "forced to live in sin" but rather have chosen to. If they are "married" they will still be in sin.
This post has been to clarify the "Sin thing".
-
What he said. :)
-
Let's say for the purpose of arguement that homosexuality is a sin. (I don't actually agree with this, but that's another story.)
I'm fat. Gluttony is a sin -- it says that somewhere in the Bible. I'm also a Christian. Can I still be a Christian while I continue to stock up on lattes and chocolate chip muffins? I've met quite a few Christians who are also fat who would not be happy if this was the view.
Edit: I also want to point out there's a gay Christian church close to where we live.
people who want to get married should be allowed to be married.
I'll pose this question to you, then (and to anyone else): Should there be any limitations on who is allowed to get married?
I don't know for sure where you're going with this, so I'll just say that I'm not sure how a gay couple being married effects anyone else's personal marriage. I just don't see how anyone else's marriage effects my own marriage.
-
I'll pose this question to you, then (and to anyone else): Should there be any limitations on who is allowed to get married?
No.
I actually find it somewhat repugnant that the government recognizes marriage at all. All of the associated legal rights (property sharing, power of attorney, health benefits, etc.) could easily be handled by civil contracts; any people of legal age who want to enter into agreements in pairs or threesomes or moresomes should be able to negotiate whatever contract they want, or use a standard boilerplate if their arrangement is a common one. This can be entirely separate from any religious or personal ceremony, or integrated into the ceremony if the parties choose.
The power of the government should not extend into dictating the nature and privileges of personal relationships. There is no public good in that. Personal relationships should be personal. Yet that's exactly what marriage law is about.
-
Your definition seems a little confused. You cant have Gay Christian Couples. Being actively Gay is a Sin according to Christian doctrine. In exactly the same way, and I mean exactly, you cant have a Thieving Hetrosexual Couple. Thieving is a sin.
It may have escaped your notice that different people have different views on their religion.
You are entirely welcome to share your views on your religion, but telling everybody else what their religion is is starting to edge close to the line.
-
Yes. Yes they do. They stop a loving couple of consenting adults from being married: Legally and Spiritually. This causes considerable conflict for gay Christian couples who are forced to live in sin.
Your definition seems a little confused. You cant have Gay Christian Couples. Being actively Gay is a Sin according to Christian doctrine.
I think claiming to speak for all of Christianity on this matter is more than a little disingenuous. If you look across the broad range of beliefs encompassed by the word "Christianity," there are few areas where they're all in complete unambiguous agreement, and the alleged sinfulness of homosexuality is definitely not one of them. There are plenty of devout Christians -- and even entire denominations -- who just plain don't buy it.
Now, if your interpretation of Christianity is such that it is utterly incompatible with homosexuality ... well, that's your interpretation, and you're welcome to it. But let's be clear that we're talking about your interpretation and not Christianity as a whole.
In exactly the same way, and I mean exactly, you cant have a Thieving Hetrosexual Couple. Thieving is a sin.
Uhm, say what? This is such a strange statement I find myself wondering if it's a typo. Do you mean you can't have a Thieving Christian Couple? Because I'm quite certain sexual identity and propensity for theft are two entirely different things. If you want a good example of theivin' heterosexuals, I refer you to "The Riches" on FX. :)
Someone can be Gay and Christian provided they repent thier Sin and do not continue to be active Gay, in the same way a Thief can repent thier sin and do not continue to actively thieve.
If you continue to willingly knowingly Sin you have fallen away from Christianity.
I'd very much like to hear your response to DKT's counter-example. Is it possible to be a Fat Christian?
What sins are so dreadful that the willful commission of them shall cause you to fall from His grace forever even if you've accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? Which ones are minor enough that He is willing to let them slide? And how do you tell the difference?
-
If you continue to willingly knowingly Sin you have fallen away from Christianity.
Are you saying God does takebacks? "Oh yeah, puny human, I know you gave your heart to Jesus and all, but then you went and sinned again so go be burned with the chaff."
Or does God still take you in but you're not allowed to call yourself Christian anymore?
I'm gathering you're doctrinally not down with the grace thing? Maybe Catholics don't buy into sola fide? And huh, possibly not Orthodox Christians, either. Luther introduced it, so makes sense not everyone buys in, but it's dogma for all Protestant sects, afaik.
I'll admit that I think the labels "sinner" and "Christian" pretty much go hand in hand, and find it boggling that anyone thinks they are mutually exclusive. Seems heretical, in fact, though that's a gut reaction I can't support with evidence.
You can be a sinner and not be a Christian, I guess (though what use you'd have for the doctrine of sin if you weren't Christian escapes me), but I don't think there's a single Christian who has somehow escaped being a sinner as well. So even if you DO think being gay is a sin, still not seeing how that disqualifies one from being Christian. Or married.
Man, I'm boggled.
-
....
...Okay. You know what? People giving FNH a hard time on his religion is also getting way too close to the line.
I feel I've gotten too tied up in this conversation myself to moderate it objectively, so I'm not going to start pulling anyone's posts out. Michael, you were the sole voice of reason a little while ago. Please take the Thwacking Stick.
If things continue to move toward insult, Michael or one of the other uninvolved moderators will delete posts, lock the thread, whatever, as they see fit. I trust them to be balanced. Even better would be if we were all to chill out just a little. Yes, I include myself in this.
Tolerance does have to have rules in order to make it work. Around here the rule is "Don't get personal." I think we would all do well to realize that we've been muddling around in a lot of linked subjects where A.) things can escalate into _ad hominem_ very quickly; and B.) these arguments never really end.
For my part in contributing to the muddle, my apologies. I must have been having a flashback to Usenet in college.
-
After that talking to, I don't think a thwacking stick will be needed. ;)
I was all happy people dropped the abortion thing... But then everyone switched to gay marriage, which is #2 on the hit parade. :o
So, Ix nay on these exemplars, please.
We could continue with Objective vs. Subjective Morality (To save time, please, without going to hit parade topic #3 the harvesting of human clones for their organs! ;) )
***
Please feel free to start a new thread on any of those topics--it just isn't polite to hijack this thread's topic. Which was tolerance evolving to a discussion of morality as objective mathematical science.
-
You know, I had a post all lined up to let FHN and Mr. Tweedy have it with both barrels.
I had web sites, bible passages, personal experiences, and cited references all lined up.
I would have liked to think I would be holding the moral high ground and defending my beliefs, and changing people’s opinions to make the world a better place.
In reality, I suspect it would have been the next step of escalation towards another pointless internet flame war.
I think everyone here has voiced their opinions well, but I don't feel we're making progress so much as we're avalanching. I appreciate that others here have their own views on some topics, and that they are not unique in their views. It is no more my place to say that my views are better than theirs than it is their place to do the same to me. There are other, more effective, less offensive, ways to change hearts and minds. So I think I'm going to take this opportunity to express a bit of tolerance and just bow out of this thread all together while we're all still friends.
Thanks everyone.
-
Your definition seems a little confused. You cant have Gay Christian Couples. Being actively Gay is a Sin according to Christian doctrine.
Where exactly is this established? I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything. I honestly don't know. I was brought up Catholic and I don't remember any homily or reading that said anything like "and Jesus said take only a spouse of the opposite gender..."
But I've heard so many Christians make that claim that I figure it has to come from somewhere and I'd really like to know where that is.
(...and to answer the obvious question: "No. I don't read the Bible")
-
...Okay. You know what? People giving FNH a hard time on his religion is also getting way too close to the line.
Mr Eley, you are a Gentleman of quality!
-
....
...Okay. You know what? People giving FNH a hard time on his religion is also getting way too close to the line.
I apologize for using my smackdown tone. I freely admit to having used it, obviously in reaction to "none of y'all understand what Christianity or sin actually are". Oh, look, my buttons successfully pushed! Sorry about that.
That said, I really, really DO want to know what tradition this "falling away from Christianity" business comes from and what it actually means, you know, doctrinally. Hence the bulk of my prior post being framed in questions...does it mean this? or that? or the other? Maybe this is not the thread for it, but if your morality is based in your religion, then I think it's fair to want to better understand how that religion works. I suppose I can try to use my google-fu though I'd appreciate FNH's clarification.
And I promise not to talk about embryos and/or stem cell research, Michael.
-
Let's say for the purpose of arguement that homosexuality is a sin. (I don't actually agree with this, but that's another story.)
I'm basing my statement on - 1 Corinthians 6:9. Which you can look up at BibleGateway.com ( I'm not sure how to post links here. )
I'm fat. Gluttony is a sin -- it says that somewhere in the Bible. I'm also a Christian. Can I still be a Christian while I continue to stock up on lattes and chocolate chip muffins? I've met quite a few Christians who are also fat who would not be happy if this was the view.
The same Bible reference refers to Idolatry. Gluttony "can" be considered as Idolatry. However my own walk with the Bible has not yet clarified that point. I have heard it preached.
My religious understanding is that to turn to Idolatry is to turn your back on God, if you do that then He will turn his back on you.
people who want to get married should be allowed to be married.
I'll pose this question to you, then (and to anyone else): Should there be any limitations on who is allowed to get married?
There should be limitations from a Biblical viewpoint.
Were there not any restrictions I believe you would find Sons marrying Mothers etc etc.
-
If you continue to willingly knowingly Sin you have fallen away from Christianity.
Are you saying God does takebacks? "Oh yeah, puny human, I know you gave your heart to Jesus and all, but then you went and sinned again so go be burned with the chaff."
My understanding is :- No takebacks. But turn your back on God and he will turn his back on you. Yes , you will sin again its human nature, and Grace follows repentance. However in the context of a Homosexual Marriage which I've already defined as Sin ( as I understand it ) the couple have turned their back to God. They have decided to put their own wants and desires above the wishes of God.
So with my definitions and my understanding I ask how can a repeat thief, who knows its wrong, who knows its against Gods law continue thieving and claim to be Christian.
I hope I have now explained my position and viewpoint. I apologise to anyone who thought I was trying to tell them what to be or think. I gave my definition of Sin in order to clarify what I thought was unclear. The word "Sin" gets bandied around so much and is so misused that its true meaning can be lost and misunderstood.
-
I'm basing my statement on - 1 Corinthians 6:9. Which you can look up at BibleGateway.com ( I'm not sure how to post links here. )
Thanks...
btw, you can just type in a link in the text
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9&version=31
The passage is:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"
I'm assuming that this assumes that women wouldn't be hiring male prostitutes or that female prostitutes are covered by adultery?
-
Ah, ok, I did a little searching and I see where I'm having the problem...it seems that the "falling away from Christianity" language and likewise the "God turns his back on you" idea are related to apostasy, aka the Unpardonable Sin.
Hebrews 6:4-6 would be the relevant citation.
I'm not sure there's a whole lot of room for expanding that idea into regular run-of-the-mill sins like thieving, lying and murdering.
So to go upthread a bit What sins are so dreadful that the willful commission of them shall cause you to fall from His grace forever even if you've accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? Which ones are minor enough that He is willing to let them slide? And how do you tell the difference?
Apostasy would be the sin above all others, the one that cannot be looked past, the one He is not willing to let slide. I think apostasy is pretty rigidly defined in this scenario as denial of Christianity (after an acceptance of it, of course, renunciation seems to be the key issue), at least if you're using Hebrews as the basis for it.
OTOH, Peter committed this exact sin when he denied Christ, and was forgiven for it...so I don't feel all emphatically certain about the unpardonability of apostasy.
Nonetheless, the author of Hebrews was serious about how awful it is to find enlightenment and then willfully cast it aside...he both says that it is impossible to regain, and that were it possible your would be crucifying Christ all over again.
My understanding is :- No takebacks. But turn your back on God and he will turn his back on you. Yes , you will sin again its human nature, and Grace follows repentance.
Oh good, no takebacks. That seems pretty standard. However, I'm still a little shady on what "turning your back on God" entails unless it's apostasy. If you mean apostasy, then you might expand on how dishonoring your parents, gambling, or any other specific sin might qualify as apostasy.
-
Oh good, no takebacks. That seems pretty standard. However, I'm still a little shady on what "turning your back on God" entails unless it's apostasy.
My Views :
It seems obvious that if you live you life against the teaching of Chirst, then you arn't a Christian. In that situation you have rejected the path laid down.
It's my belief that simply claiming your Christian is not enough, the teachings demand more, they demand that you confess Christ with your mouth and your heart. If your hearts not in it...
i.e. If a player doesn't do what the coach says, and doesn't put the effort in, he's not a team player.
-
This brings up another issue I've had a hard time understanding - old testament vs new testament. If the two disagree, the most obvious example being "an eye for an eye" vs "turning the other cheek," which is correct? It seems like the new testament should take precedence, at least for Christians. If that's the case, then it seems like Peter denying Jesus three times and then being forgiven for it later would make "turning away from God" no longer the unforgivable sin.
It seems like when I see Christians denouncing one behavior or another, it's always based on an old testament passage, and it always makes me think "sure, but did Jesus have anything to say about that?" I was actually encouraged when I started seeing people wearing "what would Jesus do?" paraphenalia. I am hoping to see a generation of the kind-hearted, non-judgemental, well-spoken pacifists like the one I remember hearing about in church.
-
Sorry, but I have to back up a bit and ask a question. I went looking for the Corinthians quote and found it to say this:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
which is different to
The passage is:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"
and then I found this, which seems to be all different Bible releases:
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-9.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASB: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, (NASB ©1995)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWT: Don't you know that wicked people won't inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals, (GOD'S WORD®)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJV: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASV: Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBE: Have you not knowledge that evil-doers will have no part in the kingdom of God? Have no false ideas about this: no one who goes after the desires of the flesh, or gives worship to images, or is untrue when married, or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBY: Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEY: Do you not know that unrighteous men will not inherit God's Kingdom? Cherish no delusion here. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WBS: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB: Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLT: have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
So my question is, how can you decide which version, suffering from whatever manipulation, is the right one to follow? And how can you be sure if any of them are correct? And if so much freedom is taking in rewriting modern versions of the Bible, how can you be sure that it didn´t happen a lot through the centuries? It´s an honest question by the way.
-
It seems like the new testament should take precedence, at least for Christians. If that's the case, then it seems like Peter denying Jesus three times and then being forgiven for it later would make "turning away from God" no longer the unforgivable sin.
Actually, ClintMemo (small pedantic correction here) Hebrews is post-gospel, and thus post-Christ, chronologically speaking. It's not Old Testament. Though in my personal scale, the gospels >> the epistles, so my interpretation is in accord with your ideas about precedence.
I often wonder what's all this business about the new covenant and Christ, if you're just going to go back to the same old 613 laws from the Torah?
Observe as I neatly tie two forum threads together: I love Vonnegut's suggestion that we post the Beatitudes in public places instead of the 10 commandments. "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Pentagon. (http://www.alternet.org/story/18881) Yeah. Love that.
-
What sins are so dreadful that the willful commission of them shall cause you to fall from His grace forever even if you've accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? Which ones are minor enough that He is willing to let them slide? And how do you tell the difference?
Apostasy would be the sin above all others, the one that cannot be looked past, the one He is not willing to let slide. I think apostasy is pretty rigidly defined in this scenario as denial of Christianity (after an acceptance of it, of course, renunciation seems to be the key issue), at least if you're using Hebrews as the basis for it.
OTOH, Peter committed this exact sin when he denied Christ, and was forgiven for it...so I don't feel all emphatically certain about the unpardonability of apostasy.
Nonetheless, the author of Hebrews was serious about how awful it is to find enlightenment and then willfully cast it aside...he both says that it is impossible to regain, and that were it possible your would be crucifying Christ all over again.
Wow. Here I thought I was just a garden-variety areligious smartass. It would seem that as an ex-Christian, the Bible has specifically identified me as having committed the worst sin imaginable. In a weird way, I'm almost proud.
(Of course, Peter getting away with it makes it even more personal, seeing as I'm named after the guy. No, I don't just share a name with him -- Mom had the Apostle Peter in mind when she named me.)
My Views :
It seems obvious that if you live you life against the teaching of Chirst, then you arn't a Christian. In that situation you have rejected the path laid down.
It's my belief that simply claiming your Christian is not enough, the teachings demand more, they demand that you confess Christ with your mouth and your heart. If your hearts not in it...
i.e. If a player doesn't do what the coach says, and doesn't put the effort in, he's not a team player.
That makes perfect sense in the abstract -- I would think that God would have a problem with you stabbing your neighbor in the throat for Jesus.
But what hangs me up is how it's being applied here. If homosexuality is against the teachings of Jesus, why didn't he have anything to say on it? Jesus said things like "Love thy neighbor as thyself." I don't recall "Avoideth ye the buttsex, seriously, for it doth squick me out" ever coming up in Sunday School. Leviticus is Old Testament, and Jesus' actual teachings are often at odds with the Old Testament. Corinthians was written by Paul. What did Jesus ever have to say about it?
-
So my question is, how can you decide which version, suffering from whatever manipulation, is the right one to follow? And how can you be sure if any of them are correct? And if so much freedom is taking in rewriting modern versions of the Bible, how can you be sure that it didn´t happen a lot through the centuries? It´s an honest question by the way.
Some are translated from original greek. Some are translated by Greeks. Some are translated by Americans. Some are written in word for word translation, some in phrase for phrase. Some are re-written from Olde english into modern english. Some are re-written with bias for personal gain.
Fortunately there are Greek-English guides. Every single word from the bible can looked up. Doing so is very helpful. Its also very useful to have a cultral context for the text, for instance "bowels" meant something differn't from what we in modern english think, you might translate that into "heart and soul, your very being".
Many claim the King James version is the very best. I cant provide any proof to back that up, or disprove it. That's why I "study" it.
-
Wow. Catching up from yesterday...
FNH, I want to apologize to you if I came off harsh yesterday. It's not my intention to be a jerk, and I hope I didn't come across as one to you, but if I did, I'm sorry.
I also understand where you pulled the verse from in the Bible. I just don't buy into it, the same way I don't buy into women having to be quiet in church (1 Corinthians 14) or even cover their heads with hats when they attend service (1 Corinthians 11).
The reason I brought up gluttony is because *my* frustration comes in with the way we Christians raise one sin above the rest (note: I'm lumping myself in here, but I think I've made it clear I *don't* agree homosexuality is a sin). But nobody's saying I shouldn't be married or whatever. My point is that I think we're all sinners and we're all kind of screwed but for the grace of God so I don't like prioritizing which sins are worse, so that's where I was coming from. Again, I apologize if I came off rude before. I sincerely didn't mean to.
-
That makes perfect sense in the abstract -- I would think that God would have a problem with you stabbing your neighbor in the throat for Jesus.
With repentance is forgiveness. Thus you have murderers forgiven and accepted by Christ. I dont remember the "stabbing your neighbor for Jesus" teaching. :-)
But what hangs me up is how it's being applied here. If homosexuality is against the teachings of Jesus, why didn't he have anything to say on it? Jesus said things like "Love thy neighbor as thyself." I don't recall "Avoideth ye the buttsex, seriously, for it doth squick me out" ever coming up in Sunday School. Leviticus is Old Testament, and Jesus' actual teachings are often at odds with the Old Testament. Corinthians was written by Paul. What did Jesus ever have to say about it?
The New Testament overrides the Old ( to some extent ). Corinthians was inspired by God. :-)
-
Trying to bring this back to the definition of tolerance...How's this for a definition of tolerance/intolerance:
Tolerance: The enduring, permitting, or accepting of something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.
Intolerance: Taking any action to denounce, restrict, or impede something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.
Notes:
Tolerant/intolerant does not apply to things you actually approve of.
Tolerant/intolerant comes in degrees, that is, one person may be more tolerant about a specific thing than another person, but less tolerant than a third person, etc.
There are times when being more tolerant is the most appropriate action, and other times when being more intolerant is most appropriate.
-
It seems like the new testament should take precedence, at least for Christians. If that's the case, then it seems like Peter denying Jesus three times and then being forgiven for it later would make "turning away from God" no longer the unforgivable sin.
Actually, ClintMemo (small pedantic correction here) Hebrews is post-gospel, and thus post-Christ, chronologically speaking. It's not Old Testament.
Oh great.
Now I'm even more confused. :P
Thanks for the info.
-
Trying to bring this back to the definition of tolerance...How's this for a definition of tolerance/intolerance:
Tolerance: The enduring, permitting, or accepting of something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.
Intolerance: Taking any action to denounce, restrict, or impede something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.
Notes:
Tolerant/intolerant does not apply to things you actually approve of.
Tolerant/intolerant comes in degrees, that is, one person may be more tolerant about a specific thing than another person, but less tolerant than a third person, etc.
There are times when being more tolerant is the most appropriate action, and other times when being more intolerant is most appropriate.
works for me
-
Tolerance: The enduring, permitting, or accepting of something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.
Intolerance: Taking any action to denounce, restrict, or impede something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.
Sold, to the man with Daleks and "EXTERMINATE!" in his userpic. >8->
...The Daleks make a great test case, actually. One could put forth an argument that any philosophy that requires one to tolerate a Dalek is too liberal -- since the Dalek is eventually going to end up enslaving and working to destroy your planet. It's just not utilitarian to tolerate a Dalek.
Rose actually argued the liberal case with some success once, but the only way she succeeded was by making the Dalek a non-Dalek, which made it suicidal anyway. And then later she destroyed all the Daleks, and helped to do it a second time. In the old series, the Doctor did the conversion trick a couple times too -- he'd imprint a couple Daleks with human consciences -- but only to fight other Daleks, and he didn't show any pangs when the "good" Daleks died doing it.
There was one old storyline with the second Doctor -- I believe it might have been The Power of the Daleks -- where a Dalek is berating one of his human collaborators. The Dalek says something like, "Yes, we are the enemies of the entire universe. We wish to rule or exterminate all that is not Dalek. But you? You fight and kill your own kind. You disturb us."
To be lectured on morality by a Dalek. How chilling is that?
-
I'm computerless for a few days and this thread happens...
My brain hurts.
-
Tolerance: The enduring, permitting, or accepting of something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.
Intolerance: Taking any action to denounce, restrict, or impede something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.
Sold, to the man with Daleks and "EXTERMINATE!" in his userpic. >8->
...The Daleks make a great test case, actually. One could put forth an argument that any philosophy that requires one to tolerate a Dalek is too liberal -- since the Dalek is eventually going to end up enslaving and working to destroy your planet. It's just not utilitarian to tolerate a Dalek.
Rose actually argued the liberal case with some success once, but the only way she succeeded was by making the Dalek a non-Dalek, which made it suicidal anyway. And then later she destroyed all the Daleks, and helped to do it a second time. In the old series, the Doctor did the conversion trick a couple times too -- he'd imprint a couple Daleks with human consciences -- but only to fight other Daleks, and he didn't show any pangs when the "good" Daleks died doing it.
There was one old storyline with the second Doctor -- I believe it might have been The Power of the Daleks -- where a Dalek is berating one of his human collaborators. The Dalek says something like, "Yes, we are the enemies of the entire universe. We wish to rule or exterminate all that is not Dalek. But you? You fight and kill your own kind. You disturb us."
To be lectured on morality by a Dalek. How chilling is that?
Not as chilling as knowing that that same Dalek can be completely baffled/immobilized by throwing your fedora over its eye stalk, or that Davros, in his infinite cyber-wisdom installed an "instant death for Davros" toggle switch, in red, on his life-support cyber-chair.
:)
-
Coming at it from an atheist perspective, my readings of the bible have always made it seem like Jesus looked at what was, found it bad, and tried to fix what he could. It's always been the best explanation for the Son-of-God bit that I've come up with.
Jesus's message is a shift from the cruel iron man dictator to a more populist, proto-democratic, message. It's unfortunate that it took the rest of humanity two millennia to really get to the point where populism is winning out over dictators, though there certainly are too many of the latter still around.
-
It's unfortunate that it took the rest of humanity two millennia to really get to the point where populism is winning out over dictators, though there certainly are too many of the latter still around.
and I wouldn't say that the matter has been decided yet.
-
...The Daleks make a great test case, actually. One could put forth an argument that any philosophy that requires one to tolerate a Dalek is too liberal -- since the Dalek is eventually going to end up enslaving and working to destroy your planet. It's just not utilitarian to tolerate a Dalek.
I don't know. I think saying that something *could* be so evil that committing genocide against it is morally acceptable may be the first step down that long slippery slope that leads to things like the Holocaust. Self-preservation should be more important, of course, so maybe genocide is only acceptable as the only alternative to racial suicide.
Still.....
-
There were a couple of thing I'd planned to mention, but I think I'll restrict myself to this:
I'd like to point out that all of you are applying objective moral standards. Daleks are a great example: You all say that Daleks are evil, by which you mean that their moral system is bad. You are placing your own moral system which says "tollerate" over and obove their moral system which says "exterminate." If morality is reletaive, then Dalek morality is every bit as valid as Time Lord morality and we have no grounds to condemn either Daleks or their actions. If morality is relative, then the Doctor saving Earth from Dalek extermination is not an example of good triumphing over evil, just of one subjective point of view forcibly squashing another. Without objectivity, there are no grounds to define either party as good or evil.
I would similarly point out the moderators are enforcing their morality on everybody else here. No one on this board is allowed to insult anyone else, on pain of deletion, and that rule applies to everyone at all times on all threads. Those who view insults as a valid rhetorical device are out of luck, period, and they aren't allowed to plead for special treatment. This is an example of an objective standard. A subjective standard would allow some people to insult sometimes, depending on the circumstance.
Lastly, I would point out that all of you who have argued that my views on homosexuality are incorrect are also applying an objective standard. You all believe that homosexuality is okay. You consider that to be a moral fact, and you expect me to recognize it as a fact. You not only disagree with me, you asert that my views are wrong with the obvious implication that I should alter my views to bring them into line with the correct view.
If any of you honestly believed in subjective morality, then you would ackowledge that my views about homosexuality are just as good as yours. By arguing that my views are wrong, you are appealing to an objective standard.
-
There were a couple of thing I'd planned to mention, but I think I'll restrict myself to this:
I'd like to point out that all of you are applying objective moral standards. Daleks are a great example: You all say that Daleks are evil, by which you mean that their moral system is bad. You are placing your own moral system which says "tollerate" over and obove their moral system which says "exterminate." If morality is reletaive, then Dalek morality is every bit as valid as Time Lord morality and we have no grounds to condemn either Daleks or their actions. If morality is relative, then the Doctor saving Earth from Dalek extermination is not an example of good triumphing over evil, just of one subjective point of view forcibly squashing another. Without objectivity, there are no grounds to define either party as good or evil.
Not necessarily. My point above is "would we have the right to exterminate them based on *our* subjective morality?" Their subjective morality is irrelevant.
There is also the issue of how the two groups relate to each other. Our right to harm Daleks began when Daleks starting harming us (or possible other races, but that's another topic.)
I would similarly point out the moderators are enforcing their morality on everybody else here. No one on this board is allowed to insult anyone else, on pain of deletion, and that rule applies to everyone at all times on all threads. Those who view insults as a valid rhetorical device are out of luck, period, and they aren't allowed to plead for special treatment. This is an example of an objective standard. A subjective standard would allow some people to insult sometimes, depending on the circumstance.
Dictatorship gives them the ability to force their subjective morality on everyone else. If they wanted to treat people unequally, they could.
Lastly, I would point out that all of you who have argued that my views on homosexuality are incorrect are also applying an objective standard. You all believe that homosexuality is okay. You consider that to be a moral fact, and you expect me to recognize it as a fact. You not only disagree with me, you asert that my views are wrong with the obvious implication that I should alter my views to bring them into line with the correct view.
No. I would say that we are comparing different subjective moralities with each side trying to justify why theirs is better.
If any of you honestly believed in subjective morality, then you would ackowledge that my views about homosexuality are just as good as yours. By arguing that my views are wrong, you are appealing to an objective standard.
No, but I would argue that you are every bit as entitled to your subjective morality as anyone else. I think it is a given that everyone thinks their subjective morality is best. That's why it's theirs. I would point out that someone's personal subjective morality is likely to change over time as their point of view and life experiences change. Sometimes it happens subtly and slowly. Your understanding of issues change. New ideas creep in that you never considered before. (That happened to me during a different thread on this board.)
Other times it happens suddenly. There is nothing more jarring than discovering that something you held as a lifelong principle is wrong.
-
But ClintMemo, you keep using terms like "better" and "right/wrong." On what basis can you use those terms if not on the basis of an obejctive standard?
You say "There is nothing more jarring than discovering that something you held as a lifelong principle is wrong." Wrong as compared to what? When you say "I've been wrong all my life," you aren't simply saying that you changed your mind. You are saying that you have become aware of a truth that you were previously unaware of: A truth that was prevously outside of yourself has been internalized. Where did that truth come from?
-
But ClintMemo, you keep using terms like "better" and "right/wrong." On what basis can you use those terms if not on the basis of an obejctive standard?
You say "There is nothing more jarring than discovering that something you held as a lifelong principle is wrong." Wrong as compared to what? When you say "I've been wrong all my life," you aren't simply saying that you changed your mind. You are saying that you have become aware of a truth that you were previously unaware of: A truth that was prevously outside of yourself has been internalized. Where did that truth come from?
I guess I should say "wrong as I see it." What someone sees as right and wrong is based on their own set of values. If those values change, what they see as right and wrong will change as well. It might be as simple as having one principle be more important than another. For example, is freedom of choice more important than maintaining the peace? Compared to when I was younger (I'm 42 now), I would have rated freedom of choice lower in comparison to maintaining the peace than I do now. This has changed slowly over the last ten years. (My friends who ten years ago accused me of being a socialist now accuse me of being a libertarian :P ). As a result, I've gone from being very anti-gun to more pro-gun, for example. I'm also much more concerned about freedom of speech issues than I used to be.
My values changed because of ten years of life experiences, ten more years of observing the world and ten more years of trying to understand the way things work. To make a scientist analogy, I would say that I have better instruments to measure with and better techniques at my disposal than I did then. No two people's life experiences are going to be the same so no two people are going to have the exact same set of values.
-
I'd like to point out that all of you are applying objective moral standards. Daleks are a great example: You all say that Daleks are evil, by which you mean that their moral system is bad. You are placing your own moral system which says "tollerate" over and obove their moral system which says "exterminate." If morality is reletaive, then Dalek morality is every bit as valid as Time Lord morality and we have no grounds to condemn either Daleks or their actions.
I disagree. The morality here is entirely relative and self-centered. I would like to live. Therefore, my morality rests in part (not in full) on doing the things that will allow me, and the other people and communities I value, to live.
Tolerating a Dalek would not be good for me or the people and communities I value. Therefore, I would make a moral choice to choose to destroy the Dalek before it destroyed me and mine. I recognize that I am not necessarily better than the Dalek in making that choice; however, I am me, and my choices are made relative to my own point of view.
All successful life follows such imperatives. Jungle cats don't make objective moral decisions about the value of their own lives vs. the lives of their prey. They hunt and kill so they can eat and survive. Any cat that valued all life as equal would not live to pass its highly moral genes to the next generation.
I would similarly point out the moderators are enforcing their morality on everybody else here. No one on this board is allowed to insult anyone else, on pain of deletion, and that rule applies to everyone at all times on all threads. Those who view insults as a valid rhetorical device are out of luck, period, and they aren't allowed to plead for special treatment. This is an example of an objective standard. A subjective standard would allow some people to insult sometimes, depending on the circumstance.
I see where you're coming from here, but I still can't agree. What you describe is the ideal, but the perception of "insult" is itself highly subjective, and the application of the rule can be problematic and sometimes personal. We try to be fair, that's the goal, but all fairness is perceived at a close-up human ground level. Who's truly capable of saying whether we succeeded?
Lastly, I would point out that all of you who have argued that my views on homosexuality are incorrect are also applying an objective standard. You all believe that homosexuality is okay. You consider that to be a moral fact, and you expect me to recognize it as a fact.
Lastly, no. I don't expect you to recognize it as a moral fact. You're welcome to disagree with it morally if you want to. I just don't believe your views on the matter should be important to anyone except you. Or at least, not important enough to enforce to the detriment of others. I don't expect other people to follow my morality, and I'm perfectly cool with people who don't, so long as they're not infringing on the life, liberty or property of others. (At which point the reason to stop them isn't intrinsically moral, but practical and utilitarian.)
The people I have a problem with are the people who believe that their morality is so fundamentally correct and important that its precepts should override both the morality and the liberty of other people. When such beliefs are enacted into law, freedom and happiness are reduced without real benefit for anyone. It has nothing to do with "objective" or "subjective" morality. I just don't like people making life suck for other people.
-
I disagree. The morality here is entirely relative and self-centered. I would like to live. Therefore, my morality rests in part (not in full) on doing the things that will allow me, and the other people and communities I value, to live.
As a side note (like this thread needs another tangent :P ), if you start with the assumption that the urge to survive and the urge to reproduce and the urge to protect the species are "good" and then only use morally neutral concepts that you can demonstrably prove, you can then logically argue (though perhaps not prove) that a handful of actions that most consider "evil" are in fact "evil" at least most of the time. But it's only a very short list of obvious items - like murdering, stealing and lying.
-
So the Doctor isn't better than the Daleks, just different. The Daleks have just as much right to kill all humans as the Doctor has to save them.
-
I just don't like people making life suck for other people.
Thats just plain brilliant.
-
So the Doctor isn't better than the Daleks, just different. The Daleks have just as much right to kill all humans as the Doctor has to save them.
I reject the question, because "have as much right" implies some sort of judge or referee. Who's handing out those rights? Is there a scorecard we can use? Daleks don't have the right to kill all humans; it's what they do. They do it whether they have the right to do it or not.
Likewise, no one gave the Doctor the right to kill the entire Dalek race over and over -- or to go saving us, meddling in human affairs, etc. Sometimes the people he saves get pretty annoyed about it, especially in the recent seasons. And they've been hinting more and more at shades of darker consequences to all his well-intended actions. But it's what he does. It's what the show is about.
From my relative standpoint as an observer, I am naturally inclined to root for the Doctor. He likes humans and the Daleks do not; and hey, I'm a human. Of course I'm on his side.
Besides, David Tennant is really cute. >8->
-
Wow, those are really disturbing words. Terrifying, actually.
So, you're saying that there is no moral principle that restrains me from, lets say, firebombing the local gay bar? If, in the subjective moral system which I invent for myself, killing gays is a good thing, then I should kill as many as possible and feel proud of myself for it, right?
Is that what you're saying, or have I missed something?
-
So, you're saying that there is no moral principle that restrains me from, lets say, firebombing the local gay bar? If, in the subjective moral system which I invent for myself, killing gays is a good thing, then I should kill as many as possible and feel proud of myself for it, right?
No, that would be sociopathic. I did say that one needs to value other people and communities. If empathy isn't enough reason for you to care about other people, there's also logic. Killing people or making their lives miserable wouldn't result in any actual benefit to you. But it would be pretty unhealthy for you, and certainly not conducive to your safety and well-being. The last guy who acted on such a moral code ended up living in the wilderness for five years, was caught rooting through garbage for food, and is spending the rest of his life in prison with no possibility of parole. Why would any sane person create a moral code that hurts other people and themselves?
As I've already implied, my basic philosophy is utilitarianism. I believe in making own life better, maximizing good stuff and minimizing bad stuff -- and I believe strongly that the only way to do that sustainably is to try to make the world around me a better world to live in. Doing good things for other people, even without direct good to myself, increases the good in my life far more often than it decreases it. I don't analyze it to the extent of picking a flavor of utilitarianism (hedonistic, preference, etc.) because they all have merits and because I also believe in the value of instinct and gut feelings.
Can utilitarianism be criticized? Of course it can. One can think of edge cases for any philosophy that makes it sound evil. My response to that is that one shouldn't take one's philosophy too seriously. Some of the most evil people in the world (yes, I'd include Eric Rudolph) are people who developed a moral code that they adhered to absolutely, regardless of other people and regardless of common sense.
I don't want to be that guy. I don't want you to be that guy either. Fortunately, most of us do have sense and are fundamentally good people, whether we think about it in depth or not. People are good because we have the instinct to be good. Society wouldn't have lasted long enough for us to be having this discussion otherwise.
Finally, to bring this all the way back to topic, I believe in tolerating other people because it inclines them to tolerate me.
Any of this not make sense?
-
So, you're saying that there is no moral principle that restrains me from, lets say, firebombing the local gay bar? If, in the subjective moral system which I invent for myself, killing gays is a good thing, then I should kill as many as possible and feel proud of myself for it, right?
Is that what you're saying, or have I missed something?
I'm troubled by your use of the word "should" which implies we're endorsing the hypothetical morals of the hypothetical firebomber. I would instead say that when people adopt morals that say killing is good, then they kill. There's no should, it's what happens.
I'm also surprised that you think most of people's choices are based on their morals. I think there are numerous psychological studies that decidedly counter that assumption and show that people's behavior is much more complex and based on a number of factors outside what they perceive as their morals. Provided you see morals as a dispositional attribution (and I do), then the earlier quoted Stanford Prison Experiment is one such study.
I think that's part of Steve's point. Morals may or may not come into every day decision-making. It might be more accurate to view human acts as based on an intersection of several polygons of neurology and biology and environment, including (but not limited to) instinct, mood, biological drive, rational practicality, the desire to be members of our society, and all around utilitarianism, as well as the ideals and morals involved. If I'm catching the drift of the conversation correctly, he's asserted that everyone's morality is subjective, and that most choices are made without resorting to the use of that morality, or with checks on the use of it at least. Thus things that may be absolute in our mind are tempered by external reality.
So frex, because I don't keep kosher and am not vegetarian, my decision to have ham on my sammich is not a moral choice. But for someone who is vegetarian, the ham sammich is a moral choice. He weighs his morals in with everything else when he's standing at the deli counter placing his order. Maybe they're out of anything but ham, and the guy has to decide whether he'd prefer to go hungry or not. Thus the having of ham sammich is a moral choice for some, but not for others, ergo subjective.
Escalating the rhetoric a little, as you did, our hypothetical firebomber would be behaving according to his subjective morals, but unfortunately, all his other faculties have been dimmed or supressed and so his morality precludes the rest of his sensibilities, even his ability to be a rational, non-sociopathic member of our society. Which in fact, is a very reasonable explanation for what happened in the Birmingham church firebombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_church_bombing). While there were plenty of people in Birmingham who were morally opposed to granting black Americans civil rights, only a very few decided that their moral opposition should extend to firebombing a church, and killing children for it.
What you're talking about is a failure of reason over morality, which hey! ties neatly back to whether morality can be scientific or not. Based on his post, (which I'm piggybacking on, to be sure) I'm thinking Steve says not. So do I.
(Yes, I know how to spell sandwich, my colloquial spelling better suits me, thank you very much).
-
and I wouldn't say that the matter has been decided yet.
It hasn't, and won't in my lifetime (unless I get hit by some life-extending cosmic ray/multiple chemicals/make a deal with the punky-gothy-Dream-and-Death), but democracy and belief in equality of all humans is certainly more visible now that it has been in human society.
I'll hop in on the firebombing bit later tonight, I have a play to go to at the moment.
-
What you guys seem to be debating now has been covered fairly extensively in Sociology. Emile Durkheim and others posit there are two classes of societal rules:
mala in se (inherently wrong, all sane persons will agree--universal truth) and
mala prohibida (local tribal rules which can be a flukish and strange to outsiders, but something you sign up for when you join that tribe)
Showing the sole of your feet to another in America is no big deal, in Saudi Arabia it is a terrible insult--local tribal rules. In Thailand a symbol that looks just like a swastika is a good luck sign--in Germany it is a felony.
So the trick is, what is truly wrong and what is just local prejudice?
As I recall, the only truly "mala in se" things that could be found was murder and incest. Everything else was up for negotiation.
-
By the awesome coincidence of the Internet, there is an article in Discover Magasine, about this very subject:
Is Morality Innate and Universal? http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser
It's not too big a read, but the most interesting part for me was here:
What impact does religion have on moral behavior?
I think that for many who come from a religious background, religion is synonymous with morality. Some people think that if you’re an atheist, you simply have no morals. That is just wrong. There are an awful lot of people who are atheists who do very, very wonderful things. As an objective question, do people who have religious backgrounds show different patterns of moral judgments than people who are atheists? So far, the answer is a resounding no.
Do you mean that people give the same answers to objective tests of moral reasoning regardless of religious background?
One hundred percent. So far, exactly the same. Here’s an example that comes from MIT philosopher Judy Thomson. She was interested in a question of whether the fetus has an obligatory right to the mother’s body. So she gives an incredibly apocryphal, crazy example: A woman is lying in bed one morning, and she wakes up to find a man lying in bed unconscious next to her. Another gentleman walks up to her and says: “I’m terribly sorry, but this man right next to you is a world-famous violinist, and he’s unconscious and in terrible health. He’s in kidney failure, and I hope you don’t mind, but we’ve plugged him into your kidney. And if he stays plugged in for the next nine months, you will save him.”
You ask people, “Is that morally permissible?” They’re like: “No, it’s insane. Of course not.” Well, that makes [Thomson’s] point exquisitely. It would be nice if she said, “Sure, I love this guy’s playing; plug him in.” But she’s not obligated to do so. Now let me make it like the abortion case. She says, “Yes, I love this guy’s violin playing!” Two months into it, she goes: “You know what? This really is a drag,” and she unplugs. Now people all of a sudden have a sense that’s less permissible than the first case. But here, people who are pro-choice or pro-life do not differ. So the point is, if you take people away from the familiar and you capture some of the critical underlying psychological issues that play into the real-world cases, then you find that the religious effects are minimal.
-
Escalating the rhetoric a little, as you did, our hypothetical firebomber would be behaving according to his subjective morals, but unfortunately, all his other faculties have been dimmed or supressed and so his morality precludes the rest of his sensibilities, even his ability to be a rational, non-sociopathic member of our society.
Not that I am switching sides, but this is implying that his morals are "wrong" which implies some sort of objective standard to which to compare them to. If they are truly subjective, then they are only wrong in that they are in conflict with almost everyone else's subjective morality.
Maybe if nearly everyone agrees on a moral principle (ex:murder is wrong) then we treat it as an objective truth.
-
I would argue the "universal wrongs" are likely hard wired into human DNA--they are the rules for being part of the human race. This would not necisarrily apply to Daleks at all. We are using "universal" in the same sense we "world series" for American baseball. ;D
-
Maybe if nearly everyone agrees on a moral principle (ex:murder is wrong) then we treat it as an objective truth
The problem is the sample size of "everyone" and what happens when that sample size changes. The idea that you could have consensus on a principle by a group of more of varied individuals larger than 100,000 seems ludicris - to take a horrible example - child molestors see nothing wrong in what they do.
I would argue the "universal wrongs" are likely hard wired into human DNA
That is certainly the main theory of the article I linked above. Here is a paraphrased example:
A train is hurtling down a hill and will crush 5 people, but you have a button that will switch the track, and the train will only crush one person - everyone agreed, hypothetically, that it would be the better thing to push the button. Then they switched it around and said 5 people in a hospital need a different organ transplant, and a healthy person walks in - you have a button that will signal it's ok to take the organs of this one healthy person to save the other 5 - no one thought that it was ok to press the button.
-
Escalating the rhetoric a little, as you did, our hypothetical firebomber would be behaving according to his subjective morals, but unfortunately, all his other faculties have been dimmed or supressed and so his morality precludes the rest of his sensibilities, even his ability to be a rational, non-sociopathic member of our society.
Not that I am switching sides, but this is implying that his morals are "wrong" which implies some sort of objective standard to which to compare them to. If they are truly subjective, then they are only wrong in that they are in conflict with almost everyone else's subjective morality.
I didn't read that quote from Anarkey that way. I read her as saying that the morality in this case is irrational, and out of proportion with other essential personal characteristics.
I think that's a defensible argument without having to get into judging the morality itself.
-
to take a horrible example - child molestors see nothing wrong in what they do.
This does raise an interesting exmple of moral relativism, though. In ancient Greek society it was considered normal that a master would take his apprentice on as a lover. In fact older men having sex with children was a relatively common practice (I'm sure I read a play in which one of the Greek Philosophers is convinced to give a speech when his friends temp him with the possibility of young boys being present).
But now, of course, it's considered utterly unacceptable to do anything of the sort. It's an interesting example of how morals change over time.
Simon Painter
Shropshire, UK
-
The problem is the sample size of "everyone" and what happens when that sample size changes. The idea that you could have consensus on a principle by a group of more of varied individuals larger than 100,000 seems ludicris - to take a horrible example - child molestors see nothing wrong in what they do.
Not necessarily. Sometimes people know things are wrong and do them anyway. To use your example: there are a lot of reasons why people commit or attempt child rape, and many are situational; but pedophilia as a psychological condition is a genuine disorder. It can be recognized by the person who has it; it can be diagnosed; it can be treated with varying degrees of success. Simply having the condition is not a conscious choice. People don't wake up and decide to be sexually attracted to 8-year-olds; they just are. Many people with real pedophilia are just as repelled by their desires as you or I would be, and take steps to get help and in particular to avoid children.
And some, well, some know it's wrong and do it anyway -- just as an alcoholic can know it's wrong to relapse but does it anyway. The mind can be slippery and treacherous. A lot of people do terrible things while knowing that they're wrong. That's the nature of addiction. In the case of pedophilia, it's near-universally acknowledged to be wrong because everyone agrees that sex with young children is psychologically damaging to them. Most other paraphilias can be acted out alone or with consenting adults, but there is no way for a pedophile to enact their urges without hurting someone who cannot responsibly consent. A lot of pedophiles know this and try to cope. At the same time, though, it can be incredibly difficult for someone who knows it's a problem to seek out treatment -- because society instantly judges one as evil just for bringing the subject up.
This is another tolerance edge case. Should we be intolerant of people for the thoughts and feelings in their heads? Do we recognize thoughtcrime? I say no, because too many of the things we think and feel we have no control over. This is definitely a case where action upon the thoughts cannot be tolerated, even for a moment; but to say that "child molesters see nothing wrong" is not always true. I've never done anything on that level of wrongness, but I've certainly done things that I knew were wrong while I was doing them, and I'll bet you have too.
-
I think this will be my last post on this thread because I think I'm just going to have to give up. Closing words:
First of all, all of you are still appealing to objective principles, although you seem hell-bent to remain oblivious to the fact.
Quotes from SFEley:
"No, that would be sociopathic."
"I did say that one needs to value other people and communities."
"Some of the most evil people in the world (yes, I'd include Eric Rudolph) are people who developed a moral code that they adhered to absolutely, regardless of other people and regardless of common sense."
"In the case of pedophilia, it's near-universally acknowledged to be wrong because everyone agrees that sex with young children is psychologically damaging to them."
In all of these, SFEley appeals to an objective standard which he think applies to everybody. Being a sociopath is bad: Nobody should be a sociopath. Valuing others is good: Everyone should value others. Absolute adherence to a moral code is bad: Everyone should be flexible. Psychologically damaging kids is bad: No one should rape kids. Almost everything each of you says is a statement of absolute morality, saying how every person should feel and act: Every person should place reason over belief: Every person should want good for his own life. Etc. The fact that you deny that these are objective moral statements is something I can only ascribe to deliberate obtuseness.
"Doing good things for other people, even without direct good to myself, increases the good in my life far more often than it decreases it."
Here you presume that you are able to know what is good for someone else. This implies that there are objective goods which are good for all people at all times and which all of can understand. If there are no objective goods, then your statement means nothing at all.
You all seem to think that raping kids is wrong. Says who? What if I like raping kids? What if I can get away with it? Is that wrong? Yes? By whose standard?
It strikes me as astonishingly naive that anyone in the 21st century would appeal to rational self-interst as a mechanism for restraining human evil. Every single day people use themselves as bombs to murder their neighbors. History is filled with hundreds of millions of examples of individuals who were more interested in the death of their neighbors than in the preservation of their own lives. It is absurd to assume that people are motivated by rational self-interest. People are motivated by hate and greed and envy and pride. People habitually do things to make their own lives worse and destroy themselves. (Know any alcoholics?) Our firebomber values the death of gays more than he values his freedom: He's glad to spend life in prison for the satisfaction of knocking off a few of them. He isn't hypothetical: He's common. There are, have been and will be thousands and millions of people with that sort of mindset.
The world is chock full, just stuffed with people who would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. And I'm not just talking about Hitler, I'm talking about the abusive father who takes satisfaction when his children fear him, and I'm talking about the boss who makes work hell for the pleasure of control, and I'm talking about the kids on the playground who mock and belittle the neighborhood dork because it makes them feel superior. Your idea of relativism does absolutely nothing to restrain such people. Your system provides you with no grounds on which to tell such people to "stop." It does nothing to restrain the real, non-hypothetical people in the world who would rather kill you and take your stuff than be friends with you.
It is also naive to say that one's self-interest is best advanced by doing good to others. Historically, the exploitation of the weak by the strong has been the norm, and the strong have usually done quite well for themselves. The self-interest of the slaveholder is advanced by beating his slaves. Treating them like his equals will bankrupt him. The self-interest of the mafioso is advanced by pushing drugs.
You will protest "But those people have unhealthy mindsets. They need to be educated so that they will understand the cooperation and tolerance are the best ways to fulfill themselves." But then again you go standing on objective moral high ground, saying that some ways are better than others and some goals or more noble than other goals. One person wants to see world where people of all colors live in peace and harmony, another wants to see a world where everyone who is not blonde-haired and blue-eyed gets stuffed in an oven. If you truly believe in subjectivity (which I don't think any of you really do), then you have to consider both roads to peace as equally valid.
I'm going to go back now to what I said a while ago, which is that "subjective morality" cannot exist: It is a vacuous term. Unless morals apply universally, they are not morals, they are just individual preferences, like preferring mustard to ketchup. A morality that is impotent to distinguish between Doctor and Dalek, between Churchill and Hilter, or between physician and hit-man is no morality at all: It is moot and irrelevant. The system that has been outlined here is not the impossible fantasy of subjective morality, it is the outright rejection of morality. Morality is either objective or it does not exist at all.
Anyway, this is probably long enough. Maybe someday I'll be honest and write a book.
My final statement is that all of my choices are moral, including my choice to eat ham, and I hold to my morality in spite of self-interest. I try to serve and love others even when it costs me something, not because I think that's the best way to get good stuff for myself, but because I believe it is the right thing to do.
I don't expect I'll be posting on this thread again. I don't really think I have much else to say on these topics except to endlessly reitterate what I've already said, which would be boring for everyone.
I was glad that we all seemed to agree on a definition of tolerance, though. Some progress.
-
but I've certainly done things that I knew were wrong while I was doing them, and I'll bet you have too.
I really think that we are agreeing, and it's my lazy typing.
"...there are a lot of reasons why people commit or attempt child rape, and many are situational; but pedophilia as a psychological condition is a genuine disorder."
Exactly - I should have typed "some child molestors". From what I have read, some are disgusted with themselves, but there are some who see themselves as misunderstood, and misuse the Greek example that madsimonJ mentioned as justification.
What I was really getting at is that given a large enough sample size you will get enough difference in genetic make-up and attitudes that you just cannot have absolute agreement on just about anything.
-
From what I have read, some are disgusted with themselves, but there are some who see themselves as misunderstood, and misuse the Greek example that madsimonJ mentioned as justification.
Just thought I'd add a quick disclaimer, as this hadn't occurred to me. I didn't give that example in support of Child Abuse, I'm completely dead-set against it, just so that's clear :)
The point I was (probably failing) to make is that whether these things are considered moral or not changes over time.
It's probably unnesessary for me to say this, but I've heard loads of stories from my Brother, who used to work for a local council, about how touchy the subject can be.
Simon Painter
Shropshire, UK
-
Since we're talking about Utilitarianism...
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y119/Nevernaut/ap8-17.jpg)
Curtousy of the fine folks at Action Philosophers (http://www.eviltwincomics.com/action/index.php)
-
It would be a shame, Mr. Tweedy, if you did leave the thread. You have made some very good points that I've had to really think about.
I do have a few counter-points, so hopefully you are still reading.
It is also naive to say that one's self-interest is best advanced by doing good to others. Historically, the exploitation of the weak by the strong has been the norm, and the strong have usually done quite well for themselves. The self-interest of the slaveholder is advanced by beating his slaves. Treating them like his equals will bankrupt him. The self-interest of the mafioso is advanced by pushing drugs.
In my experience and learning, this is wrong. The problem with this example is you are not allowing a paradigm shift - you are arguing short term gain versus long term improvement.
People clearly work harder when there is something to gain for themselves. Society on the whole advances (improves, perhaps). The problem with the slave owners you mention is that they could not see how long term this would benefit them specifically. Or perhaps the gains did not suit them. Without enlighted self interest then the slaves wouldn't work at all - it's the personal desire not to be beaten that makes them work.
Your comments about absolute moralism, remind me about a series I listened to on NPR years ago, about why the Bible is not "updated". The arguement, as I remember it, was that the Bible would become to trendy and basically turn into the "individual preferences" you mention. "That particular sin isn't in my Bible because..." The real problem with this is when parts of the teachings get outdated or irrelevant to society - then the book loses some of it's power. You see many people protesting Red Lobster lately? It's in the same general area of Leviticus that gets quoted about homosexuals. However, I've only heard it quoted by smartasses like me to prove a point. Why are those passages less important to "true Christians"? (this is not a dig at you Mr. Tweedy).
You bring up an excellent point about absolute moralism, and I think, in Western society, the power of the Holy Book in ths regard (be it Quran, Bible, or Talmud) has been replaced by the Rule of Law. That is our absolute moralism. These are the codified rules we live by. I do understand that when a law changes or is created that a large minority disapproves of, they look somewhere else to return the status quo. However, anything that gives people equality in participating in society always ends up improving the society as a whole.
Religion is the kind of belief that can never be argued - you already believe is something that is immeasureable by all my senses, how could I possible win against God?
-
I think this will be my last post on this thread because I think I'm just going to have to give up.
Fair enough. I think the only valid reason to have discussions like this anyway is if you're enjoying yourself or learning things from having to explain yourself. Certainly no one's likely to change anyone's mind in a context like this, and no one's accusing anyone else (I hope) of being a bad person just for having different mental frameworks.
First of all, all of you are still appealing to objective principles, although you seem hell-bent to remain oblivious to the fact.
I think this comes down to semantics. If I had appended "in my opinion," "from my perspective," or "it is my personal judgment" to every sentence in every post I wrote here, would you still think I was appealing to objective principles? You seem to be judging the omission of these qualifiers to mean that I think my thoughts ought to be imposed on everyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't hold anyone accountable to my thoughts alone except me. I didn't put all those qualifiers in at every point because I thought they were implied.
In all of these, SFEley appeals to an objective standard which he think applies to everybody. Being a sociopath is bad: Nobody should be a sociopath. Valuing others is good: Everyone should value others. Absolute adherence to a moral code is bad: Everyone should be flexible. Psychologically damaging kids is bad: No one should rape kids. Almost everything each of you says is a statement of absolute morality, saying how every person should feel and act:
No, everything I say is an opinion, a subjective value judgment, and a lot of the reasons for those opinions are other than moral. They are directly practical. Nobody should be a sociopath because the presence of sociopaths can do a lot of harm to me and people of value to me. Someone else could disagree, of course. But if their disagreement resulted in harm or became a threat, I'd still want them stopped, and wouldn't give a damn about objective moral frameworks.
Our firebomber values the death of gays more than he values his freedom: He's glad to spend life in prison for the satisfaction of knocking off a few of them. He isn't hypothetical: He's common. There are, have been and will be thousands and millions of people with that sort of mindset.
I cannot say what's in the minds of thousands or millions of people. I'm not them. I can't judge thoughts because I don't know them. But I can judge actions. (Again, in my humble opinion, blah blah.) I can take great comfort in knowing that action on such principles is extraordinarily uncommon. That Eric Rudolph is front-page sensational news, and that there isn't a daily list of gay nightclub bombings in the police blotter on Page 8.
The world is chock full, just stuffed with people who would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. And I'm not just talking about Hitler, I'm talking about the abusive father who takes satisfaction when his children fear him, and I'm talking about the boss who makes work hell for the pleasure of control, and I'm talking about the kids on the playground who mock and belittle the neighborhood dork because it makes them feel superior. Your idea of relativism does absolutely nothing to restrain such people. Your system provides you with no grounds on which to tell such people to "stop." It does nothing to restrain the real, non-hypothetical people in the world who would rather kill you and take your stuff than be friends with you.
Of course it does. I can stop them because they're hurting people. And a world in which people are free to hurt other people without consequence is a world in which I and mine are eventually going to get hurt.
Furthermore, let's say you were right. Let's say my moral framework was flawed here, and permitted some evil to happen that I knew about. If my basic instincts cry out to do something anyway, I feel completely free to ignore any of my own philosophical meanderings and do what I think is right. Because philosophy is philosophy, but somebody hurting someone right in front of me is too important to waste time squabbling about.
You may call that an absolute morality rooted in my instincts. I cannot agree only because I don't know who else would do what in the same situation. And you know what? I don't care. I am responsible for my actions. Whether everyone on the planet would do the same thing doesn't matter.
I'm going to go back now to what I said a while ago, which is that "subjective morality" cannot exist: It is a vacuous term. Unless morals apply universally, they are not morals, they are just individual preferences, like preferring mustard to ketchup. A morality that is impotent to distinguish between Doctor and Dalek, between Churchill and Hilter, or between physician and hit-man is no morality at all: It is moot and irrelevant.
I think you've missed my point entirely. I did say one couldn't tolerate a Dalek. I am saying now that one cannot tolerate Hitler. (We'll skip the Godwin's Law invocation for now.) Whether one refuses to tolerate for "absolute moral" reasons is irrelevant. Why you stop them doesn't matter. From my perspective they must be stopped to reduce suffering in the world. If you want to have a different reason, that's cool by me.
The system that has been outlined here is not the impossible fantasy of subjective morality, it is the outright rejection of morality. Morality is either objective or it does not exist at all.
Yeah, that goes back full circle. See? No one ever convinces anyone of anything in these sorts of threads. The best you can do is to develop your own viewpoint better for your own benefit.
My final statement is that all of my choices are moral, including my choice to eat ham, and I hold to my morality in spite of self-interest. I try to serve and love others even when it costs me something, not because I think that's the best way to get good stuff for myself, but because I believe it is the right thing to do.
Good for you. I mean that -- I'm not being ironic. Honestly, genuinely, good for you. May you continue to do good (by your perspective or mine), and be happy with the good you're doing, for a long time to come.
-
I think this will be my last post on this thread because I think I'm just going to have to give up.
Giving up on all that great tolerance this thread is generating so soon? Alas.
(That was a joke, btw. I completely understand thread exhaustion.)
First of all, all of you are still appealing to objective principles, although you seem hell-bent to remain oblivious to the fact.
It's possible I'm just that willfully oblivious, but I have yet to see where I've applied objective principles. I have applied some of Michael's universal wrongs, but as he noted, those may be hardwired for species survival. Hardly a case of morality. I've also applied some basic psychological principles in addition to the basic sociological ones, but I would count that as science, not objective principles. We may discover on down the line that these principles are flawed or mistaken and I'm assuming an objective principle has to endure through the ages...is that right?... "at all times, for all people, in all circumstances".
Although I have plenty of philosophical tenets that align themselves with Steve's (or at least do not conflict with his), since you've felt free to generally lump me in with him with your "all of you" followed by numerous quotes taken only from his posts...I'm now forced to demarcate: I am not a utilitarian nor a hedonist.
I'd also recommend that you not take my pointing out flaws in this or that argument as an endorsement of one side over the other. Generally I'm drawn to pointing out flaws where they seem invisible. (shrink says: there's a long history of gender marginalization to account for that personality quirk). So, for example, though I'm not a hedonist, so soon as Steve acknowledged his philosophy as flawed, I was less inclined to point out the flaws in his philosophy because he's already come to terms with them and accounts for them. One of the way he accounts for the possibility that his life approach may be imperfect is to respect other people's life approaches when they differ from his own, at least up to a point. And thus we are at tolerance again.
See, I think his moral compass lends itself to tolerance. In general, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic model does not lend itself to tolerance. You can square-peg-round-hole it, especially if you take Jesus for a model (see ClintMemo's posts earlier about Jesus as tolerant figure), but all those religious traditions say "We're right, you're wrong. We're tribe, you're outsider."
Which is, in a nutshell, not tolerant, in just the way palimpsest was referring to in the way-way-wayback of this thread before I ever came into it.
Almost everything each of you says is a statement of absolute morality, saying how every person should feel and act: Every person should place reason over belief: Every person should want good for his own life. Etc. The fact that you deny that these are objective moral statements is something I can only ascribe to deliberate obtuseness.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, dude, slow down. I find it curious that you keep adding in "shoulds" where I never put them. I never said that "every person should place reason over belief." I never even implied it. I explained a situation as "failure of reason over morality". But yes, we had already agreed (I thought) that the situation was a failure of SOMETHING, so I was merely ascribing a potential (and to me, plausible) explanation as to what went wrong. I then applied that same situation to a real (rather than hypothetical) situation and saw it still fit. It's just an explanation of events, not a prescription for behavior. I'm not even claiming it's an absolute explanation or a universal explanation, I'm merely trying to open the door to alternate interpretations of what is occurring. My whole point is that we really don't actually know the answers to these things, but with the help of psychology and sociology we might come up with something a little more concrete and predictable than "all morality is based in objective principles" which is difficult to swallow on its face because morality differs from group to group and person to person (as pointed out in MadSimonJ's Greek men with young male apprentices example).
Here you presume that you are able to know what is good for someone else. This implies that there are objective goods which are good for all people at all times and which all can understand. If there are no objective goods, then your statement means nothing at all.
Actually, we already know what is good for people, again, based on that wonderful science of psychology. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs) tells us exactly what is good for all human beings. Steve doesn't have to presume, he can look into the wealth of human study and know.
It strikes me as astonishingly naive that anyone in the 21st century would appeal to rational self-interst as a mechanism for restraining human evil.
I'm sure Steve can stand up for himself on this one, but I don't think he was offering his self-interest as anything quite so far-reaching and grandiose as a mode for restraining human evil, but as a mode for people to live together with a minimum of problems. Near as I can tell, he was just offering it up as what works for him, right now. In ten years he could change his mind. He's probably changed his mind in the last ten years. I know I have. I think probably the only morality that will restrain human evil is the Dalek morality of killing them all. That's biblical, btw (not the Daleks, but the inescapable evil of all mankind), if the bible happens to be your tool for objective, universal morality.
Your idea of relativism does absolutely nothing to restrain such people. Your system provides you with no grounds on which to tell such people to "stop." It does nothing to restrain the real, non-hypothetical people in the world who would rather kill you and take your stuff than be friends with you.
Curious. I didn't believe moral relativism...or any type of morality was supposed to "restrain" anyone. I didn't think "restraining" people was what we were discussing. I thought we were discussing moral systems, and whether they could be compared to science, math or otherwise be considered big T truth. Yet you've used the term "restrain" several times.
Is, perhaps, what you're trying to say that we need an objective, universal morality so that we can force people to abide by it? Rules? Laws? Punishments? Protections?
Because there are ways to have all those things without having an objective and universal morality, you know. We can all just decide we want our society to work certain ways without resorting to morals. Social contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract), Rousseau-style.
I'm not sure why you would want to try and force people to a morality that will always fail and then apply punishments based on those inevitable failures.
You will protest "But those people have unhealthy mindsets. They need to be educated so that they will understand the cooperation and tolerance are the best ways to fulfill themselves."
You know, I wish you wouldn't tell me what I'm going to say and then answer it. That's not dialogue, that's monologue.
My final statement is that all of my choices are moral, including my choice to eat ham, and I hold to my morality in spite of self-interest.
Really? There's some moral principle you serve when urinating and defecating? When sleeping? When taking an aspirin for a headache? When putting on a jacket? Showering? Slamming on the brakes in order to not rear end someone who has suddenly stopped in front of you?
If it's true, that your every action is based in morality, I am astonished. I have never met anyone else like you. Perhaps you do have access to a higher understanding of morality than anyone else here. I am a little skeptical of your claim, but really, if it's true, you definitely ought to write a book, because you're in a class of your own.
If I had to think on the moral implications of everything I do, I'd never get out of bed.
-
Yeah, I'm still reading.
-
There's some moral principle you serve when urinating and defecating? When sleeping? When taking an aspirin for a headache? When putting on a jacket? Showering? Slamming on the brakes in order to not rear end someone who has suddenly stopped in front of you?
In answer to a direct question: Yes.
When and where I urinate are descisions made according to principles of courtesy and hostpitality. I do not urinate on the street because it would subject others to unsanitary and uncomfortable conditions, and because it would violate modesty. Moral choice.
Sleeping when I'm supposed to be on guard or something violates the trust others have put in me. Sleeping somewhere that is not my bed will make my wife worry. Sleeping within a certain proximity to another person sends a message to them for whose content I am responsible. Moral choices.
Taking asprin and putting on a jacket are actions to protect and maintain my body. By doing them, I am valuing my person and my life, which is a moral principle.
There are days when I would rather not bother with a shower, but I do it out of courtesy to those who might be offended by my stink.
I slam on the brakes because I value the safety and property of myself and others. I take action to protect that which I could as valuable.
So yeah, morality comes into play with all those things. I don't have to stop and think every time I do each of them because once I've understood something, I don't have to pause and understand it again the next time: I go by habit, which saves a lot of time.
-
I'm sure Steve can stand up for himself on this one, but I don't think he was offering his self-interest as anything quite so far-reaching and grandiose as a mode for restraining human evil, but as a mode for people to live together with a minimum of problems. Near as I can tell, he was just offering it up as what works for him, right now. In ten years he could change his mind. He's probably changed his mind in the last ten years.
May I offer a big "Hell yes." Even more amusing was where I was in my head 12 or 13 years ago, halfway through college.
Again, I think a lot of the disagreements here really do come down to semantics and to differences in how we choose to interpret ourselves. When asked, Mr. Tweedy may justify brushing his teeth as a deliberate moral act in the context of universal imperative, with careful consideration of both deontological and consequential motivations. Is he right? No idea. Did he really consider all that before somebody asked him? Who knows? I can't ask him; that would defeat the purpose. >8-> Me, I might just say "Yeah, I hate the way my teeth feel in the morning when I don't brush them at night." But that's not really why I started brushing either. I started brushing because my parents told me to, long long ago. And I kept doing it because, well, I just did. When pressed, I can come up with all sorts of reasons for it, but those reasons aren't why. I hardly ever think about them. Any given night, I do it just because that's what I do.
Mr. Tweedy also invoked habit, so really I think we're more alike than different. He describes his internalities differently than I describe mine, but I think those may be differences in the analyses rather than the specimens. And we both brush our teeth, so really, how much does it matter?
In closing (yeah, I think I'm done here too), let me repeat once more that to me, the easiest way to live a balanced and good life is to be aware of philosophy but not to take it too seriously. Thinking about the world should enable happier living in it; when it starts getting in the way, it's probably better to lay off the Kant and take a walk.
The world is full of people who never think, and the have the potential to do a lot of harm. The world is also full of people who think too much, and they also have the potential to do a lot of harm.
All things in balance. Know yourself, sure, but also like and trust yourself despite the gaps in your self-knowledge.
-
I did not start doing everything that I do for moral reasons: I started brushing because my parents said to.
But as I mature, I ask questions. I ask myself why I do things and if those things are really right or not. Sometimes the "why" is obvious and sometimes it's a riddle so tricky I have to put it on hold and come back to it later. As I ask, analyze, study, and consider instruction, my views and understandings change.
If I accepted subjective morality, I would have no incentive to do this. If I could make up whatever standard I wanted, then the answer to "why" would always be "because I said so" and I would be bogged down in my own hubris with no motivation to ever grow or change. But, since I accept that there is an absolute Standard, I have something to measure myself against. I grow and change as I seek to better know what the Standard is and how it applies to my life. In the course of this process, a rule like "brush your teeth" ceases to be an arbitrary impossition from my parents as I recognize its significance and the reasons why it is necessary.
No, I had never before thought of putting on a jacket in terms of moral significance; the question spurred the thought for the first time. Now that I've considered it, my understand and my knowledge as just a hare bigger and better than they were before. I've grown a little bit. It's a growth, not just an arbitrary change.
-
If I accepted subjective morality, I would have no incentive to do this. If I could make up whatever standard I wanted, then the answer to "why" would always be "because I said so" and I would be bogged down in my own hubris with no motivation to ever grow or change.
Counterpoint: I accept subjective morality. Do I strike you as someone who answers "Because I said so" to every question of "Why?"
I will readily admit to some hubris, but do you assess me as the sort of person who never grows, changes, or thinks about his actions?
Feel free to answer honestly. I won't take it as an insult, and I won't argue with your answers; I'm inviting it.
No, I had never before thought of putting on a jacket in terms of moral significance; the question spurred the thought for the first time. Now that I've considered it, my understand and my knowledge as just a hare bigger and better than they were before. I've grown a little bit. It's a growth, not just an arbitrary change.
Very cool.
-
I did not start doing everything that I do for moral reasons: I started brushing because my parents said to.
But as I mature, I ask questions. I ask myself why I do things and if those things are really right or not. Sometimes the "why" is obvious and sometimes it's a riddle so tricky I have to put it on hold and come back to it later. As I ask, analyze, study, and consider instruction, my views and understandings change.
much like I said has happened to me in the last ten years back a few pages ago.
-
One other thing I can add as yet another side note...
My (limited) experience as a foster parent has taught me that there is NOTHING hardwired in a human being that teaches people right from wrong. Kids who suffer from severe neglect when they are very young can develop "reactive attachment disorder." In severe cases, they have no regard for anyone but themselves. They have no concept of cause and effect. They have no concept of there being consequences for their actions. Their only concern is for their own self-interest and generally only in the short term. They are little sociopaths. They often grow up to be adult sociopaths.
-
Counterpoint: I accept subjective morality. Do I strike you as someone who answers "Because I said so" to every question of "Why?"
I will readily admit to some hubris, but do you assess me as the sort of person who never grows, changes, or thinks about his actions?
Feel free to answer honestly. I won't take it as an insult, and I won't argue with your answers; I'm inviting it.
Like I've said numerous times here, I don't think you really do believe in subjective morality. It think you're a hypocrite: You pay lip service to a standard that you don't actually live by. So, no, you don't strike me as being those things. He strike me as a person who hasn't thoroughly thought out the implications of their own philosophy.
-
I've read the phrase "do good" a few times here. I was wondering what people consider the definition for that and perhaps its opposite.
-
Like I've said numerous times here, I don't think you really do believe in subjective morality. It think you're a hypocrite: You pay lip service to a standard that you don't actually live by. So, no, you don't strike me as being those things. He strike me as a person who hasn't thoroughly thought out the implications of their own philosophy.
Heh. Well, I did ask. I appreciate your insights into what I think, and you have my thanks for clarifying, one last time, that what I think is not what I think I think.
...And I think I'm done here. >8-> It's been fun and stimulating. Last one out, please hit the lights. You're all cool with me.
-
One other thing I can add as yet another side note...
My (limited) experience as a foster parent has taught me that there is NOTHING hardwired in a human being that teaches people right from wrong. Kids who suffer from severe neglect when they are very young can develop "reactive attachment disorder." In severe cases, they have no regard for anyone but themselves. They have no concept of cause and effect. They have no concept of there being consequences for their actions. Their only concern is for their own self-interest and generally only in the short term. They are little sociopaths. They often grow up to be adult sociopaths.
Would you consider that in the case of "reactive attachment disorder" the hardwiring has just been seriously messed with by long-term neglect? That goes a little afield into nature vs. nurture but I do think its possible that even the most instinctive of reactions can be screwed up and messed with by repeat environmental trauma.
And again, just to be clear, I was talking about the possibility of universal social taboos being about species survival, not about morals. I think there may be cases where individual survival wiring supercedes species survival wiring.
I'm interested in your foster care experiences (though I'm trying not to encourage topic drift).
-
One other thing I can add as yet another side note...
My (limited) experience as a foster parent has taught me that there is NOTHING hardwired in a human being that teaches people right from wrong. Kids who suffer from severe neglect when they are very young can develop "reactive attachment disorder." In severe cases, they have no regard for anyone but themselves. They have no concept of cause and effect. They have no concept of there being consequences for their actions. Their only concern is for their own self-interest and generally only in the short term. They are little sociopaths. They often grow up to be adult sociopaths.
Firstly, major MAJOR admiration for you taking on those kids.
However I have to disagree about the hardwiring. I think children can be and often are beasted. They have the humanity driven out by the circumstances that they are in.
For instance a child who is not loved by thier parents may, despite the lack of role model, show great compassion for others. In effect the hard-wiring can be overridden.
-
Speaking as an anthropologist who rejects cultural relativism in its more extreme forms, my view of subjective morality is pretty simple. One can adjust for psychological and cultural differences, but at heart, we're all still human. As humans, there are things that we can say are objectively true for humans -- although it all goes to pot if we discover sentient silicate rock crystals from Xygar. The sentient silicate rock crystals can have their own subjective and objective truths.
I'm profoundly uninterested in talking about this stuff with anyone who has a morality from revealed truths, however. The conversation goes like this:
"Revealed truth."
"Ah, but your revealed truths are bullshit, because of logic."
"Reassertion of revealed truths, which trump logic, being revealed."
"Well... okay, then."
Just don't make laws based on your revealed truths. This should be intuitive, yes?
-
universal social taboos being about species survival
Right. Basically what you'd need to prove for that is that those universal social taboos are carried by a large enough portion of the population for them to continue to be carried.
FWIW, anthropologists routinely say that the only cross-culturally accepted social taboo is against incest (which is defined differently in each locale), which they further use to indicate that incest is the only thing we're damn sure happens in all cultures (because otherwise why would everyone need the taboo?).
I would expect that people everywhere frown on in-group murder under normal circumstances, though I've never heard this argued, so it may be that there's some group somewhere that is or was chill with killin'...
-
I'm profoundly uninterested in talking about this stuff with anyone who has a morality from revealed truths,
I dont think thats true, because ...
"Revealed truth."
"Ah, but your revealed truths are bullshit, because of logic."
"Reassertion of revealed truths, which trump logic, being revealed."
"Well... okay, then."
.. which objectively seems a bit sweary, and a bit nasty.
"Revealed truth."
Just don't make laws based on your revealed truths. This should be intuitive, yes?
...because your religion/belief is logic?
-
Laws should be made on the basis of objective reality. Don't legislate your religion on my body.
-
".. which objectively seems a bit sweary, and a bit nasty."
I suppose it's objectively sweary, for containing a swear word. But nasty is always a subjective opinion, so no dice.
-
I'm profoundly uninterested in talking about this stuff with anyone who has a morality from revealed truths,
I dont think thats true, because ...
"Revealed truth."
"Ah, but your revealed truths are bullshit, because of logic."
"Reassertion of revealed truths, which trump logic, being revealed."
"Well... okay, then."
.. which objectively seems a bit sweary, and a bit nasty.
I would add that there is no point - as I mentioned to Mr. Tweedy - I can't win an arguement with God. Put another way - If someone truly believes that the Moon Landing was a hoax nothing I can say or show will convince them otherwise.
"Revealed truth."
Just don't make laws based on your revealed truths. This should be intuitive, yes?
...because your religion/belief is logic?
No, because, frankly, the specific guidances of religion often lose their relevance over time. Have any roosters crow into a glass and break it, lately? How to deal with that specific case is covered in the Quran. Worried about eating shellfish - check out Levitcus. Pork bother you - try the Talmud.
-
No, because, frankly, the specific guidances of religion often lose their relevance over time. Have any roosters crow into a glass and break it, lately? How to deal with that specific case is covered in the Quran. Worried about eating shellfish - check out Levitcus. Pork bother you - try the Talmud.
I dont "get" any of that. Your terms of reference didn't come across to me I'm afraid. I'm assuming your backing up the "guidances of religion" assertion. I would disagree with that.
-
You disagree that the specific provisions of what it is interpreted that religion prohibits change over time? That is, you're arguing that the interpretation of religion's prohibitions remains static over time?
This is demonstrably untrue.
-
I suppose it's objectively sweary, for containing a swear word. But nasty is always a subjective opinion, so no dice.
Yet you used swear words to describe my religious belief. You were nasty to me. "Thems the dice". On top of that you just suggested that my opinion of my own feelings dont count. I consider that a "Nasty" hurtful statement. Seriously I'm not sitting here crying over it, but I feel the "nasty bit applies.
-
You disagree that the specific provisions of what it is interpreted that religion prohibits change over time? That is, you're arguing that the interpretation of religion's prohibitions remains static over time?
This is demonstrably untrue.
No. You originally said ...
the specific guidances of religion often lose their relevance over time
... and now your suggesting ...
You disagree that the specific provisions of what it is interpreted that religion prohibits change over time?
Which is differn't.
-
It's still not objective, by the definition of the word objective. Your feelings are, by definition, subjective.
The point I made stands, more or less by the terms slic said: I can't argue with God. If someone wants to pull out God as their rationale for anything, then one can't argue with that, by logic or otherwise. "God says so" sets terms for the argument which are concerned with revealed truth, not objective reality.
"Bullshit" is a relatively mild word in my lexicon. I apologize for offending you, but since I stand by the statement, I don't know if you'll accept that as appropriate, which is reasonable.
-
You're arguing with two different people, FNH. Don't condense us.
They aren't different. Slic suggests that there are some religious prohibitions which are no longer followed (because of relevance). I suggest the same thing, but add the word 'interpretation,' which, if anything, includes what Slic said and adds some.
I believe, for instance, that Christians are admonished in Leviticus never to wear mixed fabrics. (Someone can correct me on actual biblical data.) No one follows this prohibition any longer. It has both lost relevance, and also been interpreted to no longer be important.
-
You're arguing with two different people, FNH. Don't condense us.
Sorry. I should pay more attention!
I believe, for instance, that Christians are admonished in Leviticus never to wear mixed fabrics. (Someone can correct me on actual biblical data.) No one follows this prohibition any longer. It has both lost relevance, and also been interpreted to no longer be important.
Christians ( well this one at least ) are all about New Testament, Leviticus is Old Testament. Incidentally I dont know the reference to which you refer, any pointers anyone? I've searched my digital Bible but I might be using the wrong search terms.
-
Yet you used swear words to describe my religious belief. You were nasty to me. "Thems the dice". On top of that you just suggested that my opinion of my own feelings dont count. I consider that a "Nasty" hurtful statement. Seriously I'm not sitting here crying over it, but I feel the "nasty" bit applies.
Ahem.
Any "I feel" or "I consider" statement != objective. Earlier, you said her statement was objectively nasty. You can't defend the objectiveness of the presumed nastiness with the paragraph above. You'll need to either accede to the fact that it's not objectively nasty, only nasty in your perception, or frame a better argument.
She used a (single) swearword to describe her assesment of religious belief. 'Fraid it wasn't just yours, it was any and all of them (unless there are religions that don't work on revealed truths? IANAnAnthropologist).
I'm sorry you feel hurt, but from my perspective, you took a general statement and made it personal in order to cry injury. It's not like you're anywhere near the only religious person on the thread.
I believe, for instance, that Christians are admonished in Leviticus never to wear mixed fabrics. No one follows this prohibition any longer. It has both lost relevance, and also been interpreted to no longer be important.
The referring scripture is Leviticus 19:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:19;&version=9;) (it's always Leviticus, isn't it?) Linked to KJV for the full ominous effect, yo. Also has some interesting things to say about hybrid crops and...maybe GMOs depending on how you stretch "mingled" seed.
-
The shellfish restriction is from Leviticus also:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.%2011:9-12&version=9; (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.%2011:9-12&version=9;)
-
Leviticus is also the basis for the it is an abomination for man to lie with man as he would with woman thingy. So no Christian who uses that statement to justify bigotry against homosexuals, and yet who also wears polyester or eats pork or shellfish, can avoid the label 'hipocryte.'
-
Oh, however -- an example of changes in how biblical verses are used:
Southern preachers used to pass out biblical verses that supported master/slave relationships to slaves, specifically to use religion to endorse the goodness of slavery. Anyone who used the verses in that way now would be (near) universally condemned. The moral meaning of biblical verses, and their implications for the world, has changed drastically over the centuries.
-
Any "I feel" or "I consider" statement != objective. Earlier, you said her statement was objectively nasty. You can't defend the objectiveness of the presumed nastiness with the paragraph above. You'll need to either accede to the fact that it's not objectively nasty, only nasty in your perception, or frame a better argument.
I was presumptious enough to assume that anyone of faith would be offended by a statement that calls the core of thier being "bovine excrement".
She used a (single) swearword to describe her assesment of religious belief. 'Fraid it wasn't just yours, it was any and all of them
Thanks for backing me up on that.
I believe, for instance, that Christians are admonished in Leviticus never to wear mixed fabrics. No one follows this prohibition any longer. It has both lost relevance, and also been interpreted to no longer be important.
Leviticus 19:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:19;&version=9;) (it's always Leviticus, isn't it?) Linked to KJV for the full ominous effect, yo. Also has some interesting things to say about hybrid crops and...maybe GMOs depending on how you stretch "mingled" seed.
Yes, yes it is. That book is very "clear".
-
I said revealed truths are bullshit, within a particular context: that is, they can not be logically proven. If we're presuming that argument is going to be something that rests on the trade of facts and persuasion, then revealed truth is a 'get out of argument free' card, because it automatically wins. I can call it bullshit, I can reason against it, I can stand on my head and recite the entire encyclopedia backwards and in Latin -- none of it will ever be useful in an argument against a revealed truth, because one of the facets of revealed truth is that one is supposed to believe it over one's own lying eyes.
It seems to me that you're working hard to remove that context from the statement.
-
If God really did reveal something, then the revelation would have to be in line with objective reality. If God is God, then sees everything and would know better than to screw up His facts. Therefore, if a given word does not match up with reality, then that word cannot be from God. Therefore, observation and revelation should always match up. If not, someone isn't being honest.
(Are we setting a record for the longest thread here? How about the most eclectic?)
-
But plenty of biblical words don't match up with reality, and then the fun starts.
-
I said revealed truths are bullshit, within a particular context: that is, they can not be logically proven. If we're presuming that argument is going to be something that rests on the trade of facts and persuasion, then revealed truth is a 'get out of argument free' card, because it automatically wins. I can call it bullshit, I can reason against it, I can stand on my head and recite the entire encyclopedia backwards and in Latin -- none of it will ever be useful in an argument against a revealed truth, because one of the facets of revealed truth is that one is supposed to believe it over one's own lying eyes.
It seems to me that you're working hard to remove that context from the statement.
Your saying quite clearly that because Revealed Truths can not be proven by logic they are Bovine Excrement. Indeed you are fully within your rights to stand on your head recite encyclopedias and learn Latin. You are absolutely right that Revealed truth is a "get out of argument free" card, because it does not rest on the basis of Logic.
The problem of logic is that its as faulty as human minds. For instance. The sun comes out, it melts the snow. Look up, the mountain top is above the clouds where it's always sunny. Its covered in snow, therefore the sun cant be hot. Obviously this is a silly example with obvious facts left out of the logical equation. The point is that Logic reaches the wrong answer if you dont have all of the facts. You cant have all of the facts because your not omnipotent therefore your logic will be fallible.
Which now I reread this post, is amusing because I just proved human logic is fallible with logic. I've been a programmer too long.
-
(Are we setting a record for the longest thread here? How about the most eclectic?)
If we can string this out to page 9, I think we'll have the record.
-
You're still generalising from the statement as it existed in the original context. I said I was uninterested in arguing with people about morality that was derived from revealed truth. From that point on, I used the word revealed truth as a stand-in, much as bullshit and logic are stand-ins for actual argument. You could reword it, without changing the content, thus:
"I believe X because of revealed truth."
"X is demonstrably untrue because of Y and Z evidence."
"Y and Z evidence don't matter, because I'm talking about revealed truth, and revealed truth is right because it's revealed truth."
"Well, okay then."
To substitute "bullshit" for "Y and Z evidence" is flip, but it's no more dismissive -- and to generalize it toward all revealed truth is to assume that there's a basis for argument in the first place. I'm unlikely to argue with a Universal Unitarian because we probably agree, and so the argument wouldn't happen at all.
Second, who cares if I say that revealed truth is bullshit? Revealed truth is a bullshit way of learning about the world (note: even now that I'm saying this, I still haven't said that they are blanket bullshit -- they are valuable for personal reasons, for maintaining community, for other things. But for logical tests? For learning about the world? I don't think they are.). I think your beliefs are untrue, and based on wishful thinking -- which, if I'm being flip, I could also call horse hockey. If you belong to one of many Christian denominations that holds such beliefs, you believe I'm going to burn in eternal damnation for not paying lip service to your God. Which one of us is being more disrespectful?
-
I was presumptious enough to assume that anyone of faith would be offended by a statement that calls the core of thier being "bovine excrement".
Yeah, please don't presume or assume on my behalf. I think she was pretty clear: religion does not stand up to the test of logic. Were I in your shoes, I would say it's not supposed to, instead of complaining about how terrible it is that she doesn't believe what you believe. You can still have a leg to stand on asserting mystical/spiritual/enlightenment matters have value to individuals and societies without having to prove anything logically. (asserting that these should also be the basis for laws to govern is a little shakier of course, but I'm not going to do that work for you, because frankly, I don't buy it, and I don't want to go there).
Were I in her shoes, I wouldn't use "mixed fabrics" or DKT's shellfish. That's small potatoes. You want to see real hipocrisy? Try usury. That's got numerous prohibitions all over the place (an incomplete list:Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:35-37, Deuteronomy 23:19, Psalms 15:5, Proverbs 28:8 ) and talk about a loaded topic. Telling most modern-day American Christians that interest bearing accounts are eeeeevil according to their very own sacred book is really lighting a fuse.
-
" Were I in your shoes, I would say it's not supposed to"
Totally.
Which is more or less why I don't like arguing about morality when I'm coming from my position, and my interlocutor isn't. It's like arguing about the meaning of the universe with one of us using only colors and the other using only high-pitched rodent squeaks. We're not speaking the same language.
-
But plenty of biblical words don't match up with reality, and then the fun starts.
I disagree. ;D
But if there is discrepency, we should honestly analyze to determine where the flaw is: The supposed revelation, our perception of reality, or our interpretations of either. Sadly, honesty is usually at a premium. :(
Ayn Rand: There are no contradictions. If you think you've found one, check your facts.
-
Yeah, please don't presume or assume on my behalf. I think she was pretty clear: religion does not stand up to the test of logic. Were I in your shoes, I would say it's not supposed to, instead of complaining about how terrible it is that she doesn't believe what you believe.
I didn't complain about that. Did I ask anyone to believe what I believe?. Am I making presumtions on your behalf? I think your getting a little tense and upset about this.
-
Try usury. That's got numerous prohibitions all over the place (an incomplete list:Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:35-37, Deuteronomy 23:19, Psalms 15:5, Proverbs 28:8 ) and talk about a loaded topic. Telling most modern-day American Christians that interest bearing accounts are eeeeevil according to their very own sacred book is really lighting a fuse.
Yes.
-
Which is more or less why I don't like arguing about morality when I'm coming from my position, and my interlocutor isn't. It's like arguing about the meaning of the universe with one of us using only colors and the other using only high-pitched rodent squeaks. We're not speaking the same language.
:-) I like that. Can I be the squeaker?
-
"Sadly, honesty is usually at a premium. "
Well, miracles are another place where the magic of the religious position can get out of argument. We know it's physically impossible for the flood to have happened as biblical descriptions suggest, but miracles get one out of that pretty deftly.
I suppose the major problem isn't with the bible so much -- although, yanno, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth and suchlike -- but with attempts at creation science. "It was a miracle" is a much better argument (because it is free of the bounds of logical argumentation) than "see, the thing is, spring water is hydrogen preoxide," which a qualified scientist can slice, dice, and serve for lunch: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/a_new_creationist_argument.php#more
There is no evidence of a personal God, or efficacy of prayer, in the way that one would expect there to be if such things existed, but people (see: Marilynne Robinson's critique of the God Delusion) can argue their way theologically out of that, although it usually involves the invocation of a sort of diffuse God entitty which doesn't share much in common with the God worshipped by the majority of American Christians.
-
:-) I like that. Can I be the squeaker?
Sure. I'll start: yellow, with a hint of orange. ;)
-
Were I in her shoes, I wouldn't use "mixed fabrics" or DKT's shellfish. That's small potatoes.
*cough* Clearly you don't understand how much I enjoy shrimp fajitas at the local Mexican dive ;) Small potatoes indeed.
-
(Are we setting a record for the longest thread here? How about the most eclectic?)
If we can string this out to page 9, I think we'll have the record.
Astoundingly, this is about to catch up to the zombie thread. I didn't think anything could compete with zombies.
However, now that I'm out of the discussion, I WILL resume the moderator hammer, and I'm watching this new tennis match very carefully. The thread is about three words from being locked; but I won't say which three, and my intrinsic faith in humankind keeps me from doing anything just yet.
(Okay, intrinsic faith in humankind and the squeaky color thing. That was pretty funny.)
-
"I disagree. ;D"
Tweedy:
You disagree that the Christian bible doesn't match up with reality, but I presume that you agree that other people's religions don't? You, as a Christian, can't argue about revealed truth on the basis of objective reality with -- say -- a Buddhist or Zoroastrian or animist, any more than I can argue with either of you.
If revealed truth is objectively provable, then why does it enter conversations? Why talk about "God said so" at all? If God would only say that which can be externally confirmed, then why don't we confine ourselves to talking about those things? Certainly it's the only way that you, me, the Zoroastrian, a quintet of Jainists, and the living embodiment of the sacred goddess (insert name here) can have a discussion in which we'll all agree on the terms.
It's also the only way that we can come up with laws that are fair for all of us to live under. Otherwise, we run the risk of the Jainists forbidding us from crushing mosquitos, or our justice system helpless before Palestinian honor killings, or Christian churches forbidding miscegenation (which, I realize most don't do anymore, but many did, and it was a bad basis for law).
-
I didn't complain about that. Did I ask anyone to believe what I believe?. Am I making presumtions on your behalf? I think your getting a little tense and upset about this.
Well I am a person of faith, and you did say :
I was presumptious enough to assume that anyone of faith would be offended by a statement that calls the core of thier being "bovine excrement".
So yeah, you presumed and assumed. I asked you to refrain. If my tone came across as insulted or upset, I was less careful than I'd like with my tone, because it was a simple request. What I really meant was,"Please stop acting like you speak for me because you don't. Thanks."
As to complaining because palimpsest doesn't believe as you do, yes, that was a leap from what you were saying directly, but if you believed that it was inappropriate for her to call your religion bs (which I still maintain isn't exactly what she did), then you were asking her to hold your religion with the same reverence you do...something which would be nice, but which is not required of her, since she doesn't believe in it.
-
" The thread is about three words from being locked; but I won't say which three, and my intrinsic faith in humankind keeps me from doing anything just yet."
I just flipped back through the part of the thread I got too pissed off to read (which is the part after I made the remark about gay marriage not being anyone's business but gay people's, and then couldn't deal with reading anymore), and I also read Steve's comment on the other post, and I have this to say:
A) I refuse to let assertions about abortion lie, I'm afraid. If someone's there with the kindling, I'm there with the match. As it is no longer up for discussion here, I'm quite happy not to take up the torch again, but I didn't throw down the initial dry sticks.
B) I did throw down the initial dry sticks about the bible. I didn't intend to; I was going for informal speech, rather than "incredibly upsetting speech." I was mostly trying to make a jokey post about why I don't like arguing with people about revealed truths, which I eventually did with the color/squeaky thing, but I should have started with that tone in the first place. I write in a lot of political forums, and most of them operate on the assumption that people will vigorously disagree, and I didn't code switch right when I came here. So while I stand by what I said, I apologize for the language I said it in, and I'd like to gather up the sticks at this time.
C) I see that it distresses Steve to have this kind of conflagration on his board. It doesn't particularly bother me; like I said, I post in plenty of political fora (and am even moderating one these days), so I have a relatively high tolerance for debate at this point (as long as I can cut out when I've had enough, as happened earlier in this thread). He's right, of course; we're not going to change each other's minds, although I hope that some of the edges of what I'm saying are clearer now than they were initially (color/squeak + objective reality as common ground between people of various belief systems).
D) I don't like distressing Steve. My original point was trying to clarify my opinions on the concept of subjective/objective moral systems, which is a distinction I find unuseful for various reasons. We've now gone pretty far afield from that. So, unless people are really into where we've ended up -- which I suppose is still related (is revealed truth a proper basis for law) -- I'd like to suggest that people veer back toward the subjective/objective thing, which I'll probably stay out of, on account of me finding the distinction to be, as I said, unuseful, and on account of me having had my fill of this kind of argument in philosophy class. At some point, someone pulled out an argument that sounded like Hume's On Moral Philosophy and I kind of wanted to moan and crawl under my desk.
E) I'd like to apologize to those who are offended, including Steve, FNH, and Tweedy. Although I still stand by my statements and perspectives, and I think the argument we've had is probably based on real differences that can't and shouldn't be eased away with happy shinyness, I would currently like to offer you all some cute animal pictures in apology.
http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/08/i_need_a_juicebox.jpg
http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/08/thebrowntowelgang.jpg
http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/26/att08751.jpg
Cute animal pictures. The internet equivalent of a group hug. :)
-
No, because, frankly, the specific guidances of religion often lose their relevance over time. Have any roosters crow into a glass and break it, lately? How to deal with that specific case is covered in the Quran. Worried about eating shellfish - check out Leviticus. Pork bother you - try the Talmud.
I don't "get" any of that. Your terms of reference didn't come across to me I'm afraid. I'm assuming your backing up the "guidances of religion" assertion. I would disagree with that.
Sheesh, post right before a big meeting, check the thread after dinner, and wham.
I think most of my points were made by the other posters, but I'll take a crack anyway. In each of the books of the three biggest religion there are rules/guidelines that are somewhat specific. I tried to pick out a rough example form one of each, but there are many. There is an actual passage in the Quran that lays out what the compensation is for when someone's rooster breaks a glass by crowing - is that relevent today? Why Leviticus wrote that people shouldn't eat shellfish, pork or tolerate homosexual men is irrelevant to my point that these are rules that have changed over time, that good people, honest people, believers have decided that they are not relevant - so don't make laws out of them.
And one pointed remark - to say you as a Christian only follow the New Testament is exactly my earlier point about selective belief - if there are a few lines of the New Testament you don't like, why not just skip those? I don't recall Moses telling us that we could follow 8 commandments if we found two of them annoying?
-
http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/26/att08751.jpg
Cute animal pictures. The internet equivalent of a group hug. :)
Ha! As it happens, the fact that one of them is a Corgi morally obliges me to absolve all sin. >8->
(My dog and I:)
(http://eley.smugmug.com/photos/18391942-M.jpg)
-
And one pointed remark - to say you as a Christian only follow the New Testament is exactly my earlier point about selective belief - if there are a few lines of the New Testament you don't like, why not just skip those? I don't recall Moses telling us that we could follow 8 commandments if we found two of them annoying?
Thanks for the explanations.
Personal View :
However I didn't just pick the New Testament. The New suppasses the Old. Have you seen the Chronicles of Nania? If so, think of the death of Aslan. A deeper law, with the older law being broken assunder.
This attitude of respect, and learning from the Old Testament is required as basis for understanding the New. As someone said earlier the New Testament refers back to Old Testament, so it's required as a context.
-
" The thread is about three words from being locked; but I won't say which three, and my intrinsic faith in humankind keeps me from doing anything just yet."
I just flipped back ...
A) I refuse to let assertions ...
B) I did throw down the initial ...
C) I see that it distresses Steve ...
D) I don't like distressing Steve....
E) I'd like to apologize to those who ...
http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/08/i_need_a_juicebox.jpg
http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/08/thebrowntowelgang.jpg
http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/26/att08751.jpg
Cute animal pictures. The internet equivalent of a group hug. :)
Nice! Big hearted. Respect.
-
It looks like a few more posts have happened since I was last here. :P
I'll skip the logic vs religion argument.
Someone asked for more information about my foster parent experience. I'll post it in another thread to keep this one from going into yet another topic.
Getting back to tolerance....
I think the problem is really very basic. If person A sees person B harming person C, is it OK for person A to interfere? What if persons B and C don't agree that any harm is being done? What if persons B and C are the same person, i.e. what if A sees B harming themself or about to harm themself? Again, what if B doesn't see things the same way? It's all about perspective. What A considers harm, B considers normal. If A allows B to continue without interference, then A is being tolerant. If A interferes, then A is not being tolerant.
Getting back to relative morality....
Someone mentioned that a person with relative morality doesn't really have any morality since they can change their views at any time in order to justify their actions. I would agree that anyone who would do that has no real sense of morality. They are engaged in non-rational decision making: making an emotional decision and then seeking evidence to justify their position.
I think it's important to have a sense of conviction about what is right and wrong - a sense of morality. But I think it's important that a sense of morality be based on principles. A set of rules for what is right and wrong that you can't rationally justify is just an arbitrary set of rules. And for the record, I don't consider any version of "because I said so" as a rational justification.
-
Sometimes I wonder if the author of this strip is secretly hanging out on these boards.
Behold the this week's xkcd.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/certainty.png)
-
http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/26/att08751.jpg
Cute animal pictures. The internet equivalent of a group hug. :)
Ha! As it happens, the fact that one of them is a Corgi morally obliges me to absolve all sin. >8->
(My dog and I:)
(http://eley.smugmug.com/photos/18391942-M.jpg)
You look quite rugged there, Mr. Eley.
Obviously, you should pose with dogs more often. I'll pass that on to Ms. Blackwell.