The problem, of course, is defining "best". Best for me, right now? Best for the country?
> given propper understanding of > your environment.
But that's Monday morning quarterbacking, isn't it? I mean, in retrospect it's usually easy to see that doing xyz wasn't such a good idea... but at the time it seems to be OK - or at least, not very bad.
> f) do what you want.
That's just it - if we're inventing a moral code, we can reshuffle things as we see fit. So I can cut that fellow off in traffic if I'm in a hurry to get to work, or I can be rude to the person on the bus because, hey, I just didn't sleep well last night.
> you have a complete code
Right, although it's a code that we just invented, and so we can change/cancel/circumvent it as we see fit. So it's not much of a code.
I think you've got something, though, in that people seem to "just know" what's right and wrong. I guess the question is - how do we know? Or, why do we think we know?
> picking one of the thousand or so > religions on Earth at random,
Right, that's why God gave us minds, so we can examine the claims of each religion. For example, Tomism, the religion I just made up based on me being fire-proof, can be invalidated by seeing me burn myself on a candle. 999 to go!
> The only alternative to "picking a > religion at random"
Let's analyze a few and see if they match the world as we know it.
> trying to use that justification makes > you an immoral dictator,
Tsk! You're using "immoral" without defining it!
> it was an alphabetized
Oops, right you are! Er... I see that... now:-)
> they essentially all agree on the > basis of morality "don't hurt people".
I don't know; Islam is pretty clear on destroying the infidels.
> If you want to claim Morality can only > derive from one particular religion
If various religions have conflicting claims, they can't all be true, can they?
> well that's my problem
If I see my neighbor in a burning house, don't I have a duty to try to help him out?
> that includes race, religion, and gender
But not behavior. If I want to live with two roommates, that's fine, but the govt has no duty to give me a tax exemption.
> that's an analogy
It's a reductive analogy, meaning a false one. One that uses prima facie commonalities to draw false conclusions.
> marrige does not necessarily involve > homosexuality, heterosexuality, or otherwise.
That's the real question - can we redefine marriage? And no, a marriage doesn't go away if a husband and wife stop - or never - have sex.
> Homosexual orientation is arguably a > birth trait
Certainly, some people engage in homosexual acts for a variety of reasons. Some folks are born with various sexual deviancies, just as people are born with other character traits like bad temper or impatience. That doesn't mean they deserve to be given tax exemptions for it.
> unarguably just as much a "behavior" as > choosing whether to marry inter-gender-ly.
Surely you're not asserting that all behaviors deserve equal favor under the law. If you are, do you support legalizing polygamy and "group marriages"?
> What amazes me most is when theists enter > into this kind of "logical" argument.
Without a non-arbitrary moral standard, how do you differentiate between shooting people and giving them a drink of water? How can you make moral judgements at all?
> Both theories fit the data, but the > mundane explanation relies on fewer unknowns.
Right, but the trees moving doesn't make the wind blow, ya know.
> most slave owners would have called > themselves Christian.
Sure, anyone can.
> No religion has a perfect track record
Watch for it... watch for it... wide net!
> But morality exists independently of them.
One problem with viewing morality as "that which has benefitted society in the past" is that it's impersonal and non-binding. There's no incentive for me to adhere to any particular moral principles, since, hey, I'm a jerk and I don't care about society, and I'm going to die in 40-50 years anyway.
Furthermore, if I can justify present evil for the good of future society, I can justify knocking off several millions Ukrainians in the name of the people, as did the USSR in the early 20th century.
> Society doesn't define bad things; > bad things are defined in relation to it.
Hm. So bad things are those that cause societies to fail... i.e., slavery, racism, Nazism, etc. That makes sense, and it has been proved by history, so we're getting somewhere.
There's a correlation/causality thing going here, though, I think. If there is a God, and he says that some things are bad, then it makes sense that doing those things would cause societies to go downhill. But those things wouldn't be bad because the society went to the dogs, they'd be bad because God said they were bad - the country tanking would just be an effect.
> And religion certainly didn't speak out > against slavery in those societies where > slavery was accepted
I'm not sure about all religions, but Christians certainly fought slavery - William Wilberforce being the most prominent example I can think of.
> if it were the source of morals, which it isn't.
But if it did, then was it?
> mainstream religions
The problem, again, is that this is a wide net. I love that phrase. Lumping Christianity with Hinduism is not a valid grouping, since Christianity says there's one God but Hinduism is pantheistic.
> religion annoys me considerably, especially > when it interferes with science
Again, "religion" is too wide a net. There I go again.
> "don't intentionally or recklessly hurt people" > [...] yeild a "common benefit",
The problem with these two foundations, admirable though I feel them to be, it that they are arbitrary. You could easily add a third - "I really want to do this" - and no one could complain, because you're just modifying something you made yourself.
> 90% agreement on something then it has > no business being a law
Hm. Why didn't you include white supremecists and Nazis in that list? Then they could veto lots of stuff.
> The only function of calling it something > else is to disciminate between them
Right, but if they are indeed different, that's OK.
> just as unconstitutional as discriminating > based on skin colors
This argument is based on a reductive analogy between racism and heterosexism. It equates a behavior - homosexuality - with a birth trait - skin color.
What you've postulated is a nice moral code; it makes sense and it's rather kind.
The problem is that it's arbitrary. You could very easily add a "e) I just want to" and then shuffle that to the top whenever you felt like it. And no one could complain, because, hey, you made it up, so you can change it whenever you want!
> the use of religion, any religion, as > the justification of any aspect of secular law
Hm. I think it's difficult, though, to establish law without some moral background. Laws established in a vacuum seem to be, well, arbitrary.
> ban activities that my religion will > not allow me to participate in
Quite, certainly.
> does not permit it to mandate that > this is the ONLY way a household can be formed
Yup, which is why a "legal partnership" or some such could be established. That way two men, or two women, or four men, or two men and three women, or whatever, could form partnerships as they saw fit.
Whether or not these new legal partnerships would be given tax exemptions is another matter altogether.
I agree, it is, certainly. Which leads us to... why is degrading people wrong?
> How do we identify a valid religion? > [...]a big dogfight.
Nice:-)
I feel that we can discuss these things, though... and that we can reason through a lot of philosophical issues and discard some religions as invalid. I mean, if I invent "Tomism" and it involves seeing me as a fire-proof being, than obviously the religion will be debunked as soon as I burn my finger on a candle. So I think there is some basis for rationally discussing and discriminating between ideas....
Well, yes, if the book has been written by people. But if it's been written by God, that's different.
> What is modest apparel anyway?
dictionary.com says that it's "Observing conventional proprieties in speech, behavior, or dress". Baring a breast during the halftime show of the Super Bowl on national TV seems to violate that standard....
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I read that idea somewhere else first:-)
> the Nazi's used religious or > quasi-religious justifications
Yup, the whole 'master race' thing and all that is vaguely 'religious'.
I think the term 'religion' doesn't mean very much, since it can be applied to the Heaven's Gate cult and to Mother Teresa. So when the fella said "all wars are due to religion", he's casting a wide net.
> one counter-example does not > invalidate that statement.
Sure, yup, right on. And if "religion" == "fundamental motivation" then yup, most/all wars were caused by "religion".
I think I was hoping the original poster would be able to articulate what a world without "religion" would be like... ]
> attempts to make statements about the > workings of the physical, tangible world > an article of faith.
Hm. That's interesting. I think I partially understand what you mean - if a religion says "always go to church on Sunday" someone will eventually use that as an excuse to run over someone with a car to get to church.
I feel, though, that Christianity has a direct bearing on my everyday life and my everyday relationships... not sure where I'm going with this now:-)...
> I thought the very concept of God was > that he was "Unknowable."
We can't understand God completely... but he's given us a lot of ways to know Him in part. The world, the Bible, our consciencesl... all that.
> I think the only moral code that is > universally valid
Right, that's a possible moral code. The question, though, is discriminating between that moral code and, say, "I want what I want when I want it". I mean... how do we decide which is a better moral code?
> I fail to see how a boob (which more than > half of the planet have a pair of) is a > "personal conviction".
It wasn't the fact that she has breasts, it was the fact that she chose to display them on primetime TV, knowing that many people would be watching who were not expecting that. So she forced her views on modesty on the viewers.
> almost every major war in the history > of the planet has ultimately been > because of religion.
Hm. I guess we'd need to get into specifics on this one. Was WWII started due to religion?
> Morals exist outside of religion.
Really? How's that? I mean... from what authority can a moral code be derived?
> I contend that basing ones morals on ANY > fairy tale, including "The Bible" is > insane and has no place in civilized soceity
Certainly, if the Bible is a fairy tale, you're right - putting faith in its teachings is silly. But I don't think it is.
> Religion should be left where it belongs: > in the Dark Ages.
Does this apply to all religions - Hinduism, Islam, etc? Or just to Christianity?
> One can believe in God and not > believe in organized religion
Hm. How do you understand God - I mean, how do you get to know more about Him?
> I get mine by deciding what I think is > best for society as a whole
That sounds like a good basis for making decisions. But why is it better than "I want what I want when I want it!"? In other words... how can we judge between differing moral codes? Are all moral codes equally valid?
> the equally deplorable lingerie bowl > (which had no nudity).
Heh.
> What do you consider modest apparel?
It's all context - what's modest in Polynesia ain't modest in Northern Virgina. I think a lot of it is intent, too - an intent to shock seems immodest, I guess.
> Religion is not necessary for the determination of > community standards
Right... but how does one judge between the standards of various communities? I mean... I prefer Mennonites to Nazis, but why?
> the standards should based on the > local community
The problem, again, is Germany 1937, when Jews were not considered humans. Or the U.S., 1850, when blacks were property. Those were local standards, but they were wrong. Weren't they?
> The federal government has no place > regulating this stuff
A delicate balance, to be sure. A tricky line to walk.
Slashdot Mirror
> it gives the best outcome
The problem, of course, is defining "best". Best for me, right now? Best for the country?
> given propper understanding of
> your environment.
But that's Monday morning quarterbacking, isn't it? I mean, in retrospect it's usually easy to see that doing xyz wasn't such a good idea... but at the time it seems to be OK - or at least, not very bad.
> f) do what you want.
That's just it - if we're inventing a moral code, we can reshuffle things as we see fit. So I can cut that fellow off in traffic if I'm in a hurry to get to work, or I can be rude to the person on the bus because, hey, I just didn't sleep well last night.
> you have a complete code
Right, although it's a code that we just invented, and so we can change/cancel/circumvent it as we see fit. So it's not much of a code.
I think you've got something, though, in that people seem to "just know" what's right and wrong. I guess the question is - how do we know? Or, why do we think we know?
> picking one of the thousand or so
:-)
> religions on Earth at random,
Right, that's why God gave us minds, so we can examine the claims of each religion. For example, Tomism, the religion I just made up based on me being fire-proof, can be invalidated by seeing me burn myself on a candle. 999 to go!
> The only alternative to "picking a
> religion at random"
Let's analyze a few and see if they match the world as we know it.
> trying to use that justification makes
> you an immoral dictator,
Tsk! You're using "immoral" without defining it!
> it was an alphabetized
Oops, right you are! Er... I see that... now
> they essentially all agree on the
> basis of morality "don't hurt people".
I don't know; Islam is pretty clear on destroying the infidels.
> If you want to claim Morality can only
> derive from one particular religion
If various religions have conflicting claims, they can't all be true, can they?
> well that's my problem
If I see my neighbor in a burning house, don't I have a duty to try to help him out?
> that includes race, religion, and gender
But not behavior. If I want to live with two roommates, that's fine, but the govt has no duty to give me a tax exemption.
> that's an analogy
It's a reductive analogy, meaning a false one. One that uses prima facie commonalities to draw false conclusions.
> marrige does not necessarily involve
> homosexuality, heterosexuality, or otherwise.
That's the real question - can we redefine marriage? And no, a marriage doesn't go away if a husband and wife stop - or never - have sex.
> Homosexual orientation is arguably a
> birth trait
Certainly, some people engage in homosexual acts for a variety of reasons. Some folks are born with various sexual deviancies, just as people are born with other character traits like bad temper or impatience. That doesn't mean they deserve to be given tax exemptions for it.
> unarguably just as much a "behavior" as
> choosing whether to marry inter-gender-ly.
Surely you're not asserting that all behaviors deserve equal favor under the law. If you are, do you support legalizing polygamy and "group marriages"?
> What amazes me most is when theists enter
> into this kind of "logical" argument.
Without a non-arbitrary moral standard, how do you differentiate between shooting people and giving them a drink of water? How can you make moral judgements at all?
> Both theories fit the data, but the
> mundane explanation relies on fewer unknowns.
Right, but the trees moving doesn't make the wind blow, ya know.
> most slave owners would have called
> themselves Christian.
Sure, anyone can.
> No religion has a perfect track record
Watch for it... watch for it... wide net!
> But morality exists independently of them.
One problem with viewing morality as "that which has benefitted society in the past" is that it's impersonal and non-binding. There's no incentive for me to adhere to any particular moral principles, since, hey, I'm a jerk and I don't care about society, and I'm going to die in 40-50 years anyway.
Furthermore, if I can justify present evil for the good of future society, I can justify knocking off several millions Ukrainians in the name of the people, as did the USSR in the early 20th century.
> Society doesn't define bad things;
> bad things are defined in relation to it.
Hm. So bad things are those that cause societies to fail... i.e., slavery, racism, Nazism, etc. That makes sense, and it has been proved by history, so we're getting somewhere.
There's a correlation/causality thing going here, though, I think. If there is a God, and he says that some things are bad, then it makes sense that doing those things would cause societies to go downhill. But those things wouldn't be bad because the society went to the dogs, they'd be bad because God said they were bad - the country tanking would just be an effect.
> And religion certainly didn't speak out
> against slavery in those societies where
> slavery was accepted
I'm not sure about all religions, but Christians certainly fought slavery - William Wilberforce being the most prominent example I can think of.
> if it were the source of morals, which it isn't.
But if it did, then was it?
> mainstream religions
The problem, again, is that this is a wide net. I love that phrase. Lumping Christianity with Hinduism is not a valid grouping, since Christianity says there's one God but Hinduism is pantheistic.
> religion annoys me considerably, especially
> when it interferes with science
Again, "religion" is too wide a net. There I go again.
> bad because it directly harms another person
So things are wrong if they harm another person. That sounds good - Golden Rule and all that.
The problem, though, is explaining why harming another person is wrong. That's the tricky one...
> Who said it was the word of God.
Well, the Bible does, for one.
> most (all?) morals are based on an
> appeal to authority
Right on.
> don't do it because we said it was bad
No, instead, "don't do it because God said it was bad". Big difference!
> what's conventional depends upon the location
Right on.
> students in class at OSU that bared as much
So true!
> People refrain from doing bad things
> because they've been indoctrinated
So are you defining things as "bad" if society says they are bad? Surely not.
> Religion is one of many morality
> indoctrination methods that formed as
> successful societies evolved
But you just said that society defines bad things. Why do we need religion as well?
> religion is a good thing
Is it? Even radical cults that end in mass suicide? You see the point, of course - "religion" is a wide net to cast.
> it's not the source of morals.
Then what is? Society? What if society says that slavery is OK? Does that make it right?
> "don't intentionally or recklessly hurt people"
> [...] yeild a "common benefit",
The problem with these two foundations, admirable though I feel them to be, it that they are arbitrary. You could easily add a third - "I really want to do this" - and no one could complain, because you're just modifying something you made yourself.
> 90% agreement on something then it has
> no business being a law
Hm. Why didn't you include white supremecists and Nazis in that list? Then they could veto lots of stuff.
> The only function of calling it something
> else is to disciminate between them
Right, but if they are indeed different, that's OK.
> just as unconstitutional as discriminating
> based on skin colors
This argument is based on a reductive analogy between racism and heterosexism. It equates a behavior - homosexuality - with a birth trait - skin color.
> [a,b,c,d]
What you've postulated is a nice moral code; it makes sense and it's rather kind.
The problem is that it's arbitrary. You could very easily add a "e) I just want to" and then shuffle that to the top whenever you felt like it. And no one could complain, because, hey, you made it up, so you can change it whenever you want!
> coming late to the "debate"
Yeah, things have quieted down a bit.
> the use of religion, any religion, as
> the justification of any aspect of secular law
Hm. I think it's difficult, though, to establish law without some moral background. Laws established in a vacuum seem to be, well, arbitrary.
> ban activities that my religion will
> not allow me to participate in
Quite, certainly.
> does not permit it to mandate that
> this is the ONLY way a household can be formed
Yup, which is why a "legal partnership" or some such could be established. That way two men, or two women, or four men, or two men and three women, or whatever, could form partnerships as they saw fit.
Whether or not these new legal partnerships would be given tax exemptions is another matter altogether.
> there should be a clause to avoid a
> Tragedy of the Commons
As long as there's a "Each Programmer Must Be Given A Mercedes-Benz" clause, I'm in...
> it's degrading to the people who were killed
:-)
I agree, it is, certainly. Which leads us to... why is degrading people wrong?
> How do we identify a valid religion?
> [...]a big dogfight.
Nice
I feel that we can discuss these things, though... and that we can reason through a lot of philosophical issues and discard some religions as invalid. I mean, if I invent "Tomism" and it involves seeing me as a fire-proof being, than obviously the religion will be debunked as soon as I burn my finger on a candle. So I think there is some basis for rationally discussing and discriminating between ideas....
> No more arbitrary than basing morals on a book
Well, yes, if the book has been written by people. But if it's been written by God, that's different.
> What is modest apparel anyway?
dictionary.com says that it's "Observing conventional proprieties in speech, behavior, or dress". Baring a breast during the halftime show of the Super Bowl on national TV seems to violate that standard....
> you can vote with your feet
Right... although in the case of the Nazis, folks ran out of places to run to if they lived in Europe.
> not basic human rights.
But how do we determine those?
> clever trickery such as the machine
> gun and marijuana stamp acts
Very interesting! That's good stuff.
> discussion is moving towards a
> fundamentl Libertarian debate,
352 +2 comments already on this story... whew!
> Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson
Haven't read that, thx for the recommendation.
> the one that recognizes the most freedom
> with the least amount of
> interpersonal conflicts.
That sounds good, but why is that moral code preferable to, say, "I get what I want when I want it"? How do we judge between differing moral codes?
> there just needs to be an agreement
The problem, though, is what if society agrees that blacks are property? Does that make it OK? Obviously not... but how do we determine that?
> the first intelligent comments
:-)
:-)...
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I read that idea somewhere else first
> the Nazi's used religious or
> quasi-religious justifications
Yup, the whole 'master race' thing and all that is vaguely 'religious'.
I think the term 'religion' doesn't mean very much, since it can be applied to the Heaven's Gate cult and to Mother Teresa. So when the fella said "all wars are due to religion", he's casting a wide net.
> one counter-example does not
> invalidate that statement.
Sure, yup, right on. And if "religion" == "fundamental motivation" then yup, most/all wars were caused by "religion".
I think I was hoping the original poster would be able to articulate what a world without "religion" would be like... ]
> attempts to make statements about the
> workings of the physical, tangible world
> an article of faith.
Hm. That's interesting. I think I partially understand what you mean - if a religion says "always go to church on Sunday" someone will eventually use that as an excuse to run over someone with a car to get to church.
I feel, though, that Christianity has a direct bearing on my everyday life and my everyday relationships... not sure where I'm going with this now
> most anyone would be against showing
> snuff films on TV
Why? On what basis would an atheist regard these as obscene?
> These are of course obscenity
You're asserting that this is obscene, but you're not explaining why.
> the deeply religious people don't
> have a monopoly on what's right and wrong
Right - when a person invents a moral code, it's inherently flawed. So, how do we identify a valid moral code?
> I thought the very concept of God was
> that he was "Unknowable."
We can't understand God completely... but he's given us a lot of ways to know Him in part. The world, the Bible, our consciencesl... all that.
> I think the only moral code that is
> universally valid
Right, that's a possible moral code. The question, though, is discriminating between that moral code and, say, "I want what I want when I want it". I mean... how do we decide which is a better moral code?
> you dont need God to tell you that
> killing people is bad
How else would you know?
> I fail to see how a boob (which more than
> half of the planet have a pair of) is a
> "personal conviction".
It wasn't the fact that she has breasts, it was the fact that she chose to display them on primetime TV, knowing that many people would be watching who were not expecting that. So she forced her views on modesty on the viewers.
> almost every major war in the history
> of the planet has ultimately been
> because of religion.
Hm. I guess we'd need to get into specifics on this one. Was WWII started due to religion?
> Morals exist outside of religion.
Really? How's that? I mean... from what authority can a moral code be derived?
> I contend that basing ones morals on ANY
> fairy tale, including "The Bible" is
> insane and has no place in civilized soceity
Certainly, if the Bible is a fairy tale, you're right - putting faith in its teachings is silly. But I don't think it is.
> Religion should be left where it belongs:
> in the Dark Ages.
Does this apply to all religions - Hinduism, Islam, etc? Or just to Christianity?
> One can believe in God and not
> believe in organized religion
Hm. How do you understand God - I mean, how do you get to know more about Him?
> I get mine by deciding what I think is
> best for society as a whole
That sounds like a good basis for making decisions. But why is it better than "I want what I want when I want it!"? In other words... how can we judge between differing moral codes? Are all moral codes equally valid?
> the equally deplorable lingerie bowl
> (which had no nudity).
Heh.
> What do you consider modest apparel?
It's all context - what's modest in Polynesia ain't modest in Northern Virgina. I think a lot of it is intent, too - an intent to shock seems immodest, I guess.
> trying at all times to 'do the right thing'
Hm, but, what's "the right thing"? Why is helping an old lady across the street better than pushing her in front of a car?
> granted i have transcended atheism
How's that?
> Religion is not necessary for the determination of
> community standards
Right... but how does one judge between the standards of various communities? I mean... I prefer Mennonites to Nazis, but why?
> the standards should based on the
> local community
The problem, again, is Germany 1937, when Jews were not considered humans. Or the U.S., 1850, when blacks were property. Those were local standards, but they were wrong. Weren't they?
> The federal government has no place
> regulating this stuff
A delicate balance, to be sure. A tricky line to walk.
> you may as well be talking about exposed
> elbows
Again, a bare breast is decent in a certain context.
> we have the decency not to force our
> personal convictions on others
Hm. Didn't Janet Jackson force her personal convictions on her viewers?
> not to start wars based on fairy tales.
I'm not sure what this is referring to...
> Atheists are going to have much higher
> decency standards,
I don't understand... why is that? And how would an atheist judge one moral standard against another?
> a Christian, who worships a story
Christians should worship God.
> women are regularly tortured and
> killed for disobeying their husbands,
Hm... this is probably an Old Testament reference... can't remember to what, though...
> gay people are butchered
Sorry, what's the reference on this one? Thanks.