Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Should the Government remove all the Religious laws in our society?
-
30-08-2001 1:55pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
I agree completely with you Xterminator. For many years Ireland was dominated by the power of the churches. Firstly Catholics were discriminated against by the penal laws introduced under British rule. Then, once Ireland attained her 'freedom', or her right to national self-determination, the Catholic church exerted her influence over the people of the island. I see inherent flaws in allowing religious belief to encroach on secular issues such as laws, fiscal policies etc.
Firstly, like you said, it discriminates against those that might not agree with those religious beliefs. As everyone has a right to their beliefs, it is unfair to force them to conform to the dictates of what religious leaders deem to be best for their moral lives.
Religious laws can also lead to misguided or short-sighted policies because it fails to take into account other more secular or practical considerations. The issue of sex education is a good example (It may not have been a law per se - but education guidelines would have been formed with the influence of religion). It is generally assumed that religion, which usually appeals to the altruistic side of human nature - will form guidelines that will be for the ultimate good or well-being of society. That is not always the case, particularly in the case of religions that focus on suffering and/or abstinence as a means of penance, atonement, a path to salvation or whatever. This is almost always inconsistent with what a secular society deems appropriate. The ban on drinking on Good Friday is a good example.
For the record - I'm an atheist. If I'm going to be punished by that - let it be in my next life (which I don't believe I'm going to have
). Maybe then someone would be justified in punishing me for my 'blasphemy'. Till that time - I would prefer not to have to put up with (however well meaning) laws based on religion that dictate how I live my life. I have the rest of eternity for that 
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
I ask the question because Ireland has become a multi-cultural diverse island.</font>
We have to be careful here, the vast majority of non-Irish nationals here, live within 6 miles of Temple Bar. We I was growing up in Cork, I only knew of 3 non-Europeans in the city. 2 Iranians in my brother's class in school and one guy who would wear Jamaican / Afro gear around town. Now I live in a building that is 85% Chinese. This is a fundamental leap which the law has failed to yet recognise fully.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
Why then do we need laws that promote 1 religion over another? I am not attacking Catholicism, just the influence of Church on the state </font>
Not necessarily. Most of the law in this country is relatively old. It was framed in a time when all organised religion was based on Christianity. The last 30 years (yes, 30 years) have seen a fundamental change in the way Church and State interact. From the omission of overtly Catholic sections from the Constitution to the Equal Status Act. Very little of the law now has (or ever had, to be honest) Religious connotations.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
For example, if I feel my religious beliefs do not allow me to drink on good Friday, I can simply avoid drinking on good Friday. But can my religious beliefs mean that I should enforce these rules on everyone in the country, whether or not they agree with me?</font>
I think all the law said, was that you couldn't buy drink in a pub or off-license on 2 days (Good Friday & Christmas Day) in the year. You could still drink at home or in a private club (BTW taking this drinking business a bit too serious aren't we? - 2 days out of 365?
). This, if I am right has now been repealed. Many countries have restrictions on weekend activities (shopping, sports, etc.), which originated from Religious traditions. It happens to suit them that most people still have Sunday off as a family day.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
Another example might be that their is still a blasphemy law in this country to the best of my knowledge. But you can print what you like about Allah.</font>
I suspect the Incitement to Hatred Act may have some effect here to protect Islam and other faiths. The use of any anti-blasphemy law here, in it's implementation, is likely to be relatively balanced. It's not like we put fattwas against, let us say, Quentin Tarantino.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
Is it right that we allow churches to have such an influence over the way schools are run? I mean there are plenty of areas where there are not an abundance of local schools. If you go to your local school, you can be forced to pray, according to another creed, to sit in class while communion prayers and hymns etc are learnt. Ash Wednesday children are expected to go to mass etc.. If a parent excludes their child, this alienates the child, if the parent does not, the child is indoctrinated.</font>
For quite some time, the state abdicated much of it's responsibility in education, a role the church took up. Look at Nano Nagle (founded the Presentation Sisters) and and Edmund Ignatius Rice (Christian brothers, which spawned the Presentation Brothers). If it weren't for them, there would have been no Catholic education in Ireland until perhaps 1900. Without education, there would have been no Daniel O'Connell, no reform of the Penal laws, no Land League, no Fenians, no IRB, no Irish Parliamentary Party, no 1916, no Republic.
For 100 years and even today, it is often up to the Church to establish a National School in a new neighbourhood. VECs have stayed as VECs and have not evolved very much.
And while, yes, schools indoctrinate religion into pupils, they also indoctrinate Maths and Geography and many other things - it is part of the curriculum. It is a constitutional imperative that children are given religious education - yes often this is one sided, but it is all that is really on offer.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
And in protestant schools they get you to say their prayers, and hymns. </font>
Yes and no many 'Protestant schools' now have more Catholics than Protestants in their numbers. Would it be better that Protestants, as a series of small minorities be further marginalised? I think we need to protect the ethos of each of these schools, together with the small numbers of Islamic, non-denominational and multi-denominational schools. I don't think there are any remaining Eastern Orthodox or Jewish schools.
Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.
<edited 'cos I messed up>
[This message has been edited by Victor (edited 01-09-2001).]0 -
Decided to break this up a bit.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
They have a great influence on the school curriculum. Look at sex education. </font>
That was their mandate, where again the state abdicated responsibility.
Yes, it was a complete f*** up (pardon me) for many years. Although we were shown a video (technically hardcore, but hardly gratuitous) intended for third level students in 6th year Biology - in a Christian Brothers school in the 1980s. It has changed a lot since then, but I don't know exactly how much. And perhaps needs to be changed further.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
In the Herald recently, they did a study which found that todays youths are scarily ignorant of many important facts. One girl when asked if she had sex education in school, replied, "yes the gave me a tampon." Others yet said things like "if you jump up and down after sex you wont get pregnant.
I asked a friend of mine did she get sex education in her all girls school, run by nuns. Her reply was, "no I was out sick that day!"!!!!</font>
I believe you, but it probably says more about the general populace than is relevant to the topic. I'm fairly sure the above applies to about 80% of the population. (However, do you honestly take the Herald seriously )<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
Given the high rate of teenage pregnancy, and unmarried mother etc, vs say Holland where the sex education is comprehensive and the rate of unwanted pregnancy is so much lower.</font>
Well actually this is a misnomer as the Dutch don't count abortions before 13 weeks as 'abortions' - they use a different term.
Remember when you judge someone, judge them against their peers.
Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
I asked a friend of mine did she get sex education in her all girls school, run by nuns. Her reply was, "no I was out sick that day!"!!!!
</font>
I went to all-girls Catholic national and secondary schools, both run by the Dominican nuns. At the end of sixth class (national school), we were given a talk on sex but the talk was given by an extremely devout Catholic lady who basically told us "sex is bad, kissing boys is bad, getting pregnant is an absolute outrageous thing to do and marriage is the right and proper way to go."
Earlier that year, a young girl had her first period in the bathrooms in school.. it's something I'll always remember - the poor girl was absolutely mortified and terrified because she was completely unprepared.. we weren't told about periods or anything like that at the time. I guess that's something we can blame our parents for as much, if not more, as the teachers we had and the schooling we received, but the point remains that no-one bothered to give 60 12-year-olds sex or health education and then when we did receive it, one-sided ideas and opinions were instilled in us.. opinions which will always remain with us, to some extent.
I'm so glad to hear that the "r&s e" programme is in place now, but before that, as Milkman said, the education was appalling and, in my experience anyway, practically non-existant, which left the children who were in school before the introduction of this programme completely ignorant and uneducated on sex issues.
I received no further sex or health education while I was in school. I finished last June. I got 545 points in my Leaving Certificate which is all well and good but school shouldn't just be about academic success.. sure I can go to college and do what I like now - I may be very highly educated when it comes to English, Irish and Maths, etc., but anything else I had to learn for myself. I may be almost fluent in 2 European languages but no-one teaches you what to do when you get pregnant at the age of 16.
Children are both vulnerable and impressionable, and, silly as this sounds, 7 years on I am still somewhat conscious that when I have sex I am going against what I have been taught and what my parents and people of an older generation still believe. Teenage pregnancy and unmarried mothers are still looked down upon in Ireland, so much so that girls of my age and older and younger flee to England for an abortion, which seems to them to be the only solution. I am pro-choice but it seems to me that a lot of these girls have no choice, because they want acceptance and are scared of the consequences of their pregnancy.
So the result? Abortion and scarred, scarred lives. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-abortion in the least, but I would be a fool to believe that abortion has no emotional or psychological effect on the mother.. I've seen it.
And my point here is that because of what we have been told growing up, because of the ideas and beliefs that have been basically forced upon us, abortion has been, for many, the only solution.
[I'm sorry if I'm way off topic here but it seems relevant to me right now, maybe when I read this later, it'll seem like utter ****e..]
A few other minor points.. I think what Magwitch meant about Ireland not being multi-cultural was that, although Dublin has a very diverse population, the whole country is not like that.. not all of it, not yet. Black people, all 6 of them, still stand out in my town. Time will change this, but the diversification of a culture does take time.
As for religious schools, I think multi-denominational is the way to go but in my town there are 4 secondary schools.. 2 of which were originally run by religious orders but are now run more or less by lay teachers .. and 2 which have no religious influence and so the parent/student has a wide choice.
Maybe I should sorta summarise my ramblings.. in short, I do agree with Xterminator in that religion should not be forced upon us all. I have my own beliefs, but they are exactly that.. my beliefs and not the beliefs of the whole country. Closing pubs on Good Friday is silly, but for so long Ireland has been influenced by the Catholic Church and I think that this influence has ran its course. Moral teaching of some kind is important to me, but all sides of everything should be available.. there is no right and no wrong, but so many grey areas which are often omitted when Irish children are filled in on important issues. In the end, they are the ones who suffer.0 -
-
-
One of the original purposes of religion was as the source of moral or ethical absolutes. After all, if God/Allah/Supreme Being tells you what is right and wrong, you’re hardly going to argue
If we even look at the Ten Commandments of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, with which we’d probably most familiar with here, what to we have? The first few stamp down the authority of God and family, the rest protect life and property. Just basic civic guidelines, given a divine stamp of authority.
"Thou shall not harm anyone"
Nice in principle, but when we leave morality to our own consciences, without an enforced black and white, what happens? For example, what is harm? We may not harm anyone directly, but what about indirectly? It can be argued that the availability of no fault divorce causes little or no direct harm, but can be departmental to the stability of the family unit within society, which is generally regarded as a more stable unit than the individual (an argument for another thread).
And if harm is caused, can it be justified as being for the greater good? Another can of worms.
Then we must ask who is anyone? The definition of who is a person and who is not has been debated using philosophical, ideological and scientific arguments for ages. Flexibility in defining a person has allowed slavery and genocide over the centuries.
The problem, ultimately, with moral relativism is we can warp it to suit our ends. Take this for example:
"It’s acceptable to conduct sexual relations with an other consenting individual"
OK, sounds fine. Now, how about a brother and sister, or a father and daughter? Both are adults, both are consenting. Let take this example further and ask, or redefine, what is consenting? The age for such in Ireland is 17, in the UK and most of Europe it’s 16, in Japan it’s 20, in Holland it is 12 with the consent of the family. Oh, dear...
When does "Thou shall not harm anyone" become ”Do what thou wilt, that is the whole of the law"?
So I would contend that Religion does have an active place in society, like it or not, believe in it or not.
"Just because I'm evil doesn't mean I'm not nice." - Charlie Fulton0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by The Corinthian:
One of the original purposes of religion was as the source of moral or ethical absolutes. After all, if God/Allah/Supreme Being tells you what is right and wrong, you’re hardly going to argue </font>
True, but absolute does not necessarily equal good. That's one of my many problems with theism; if God defines good then saying God is all good is meaningless; he could define kiddy raping as good and it would be so. But if good is defined by an entity outside of God, then he no longer fits the definition.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If we even look at the Ten Commandments of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, with which we’d probably most familiar with here, what to we have? The first few stamp down the authority of God and family, the rest protect life and property. Just basic civic guidelines, given a divine stamp of authority.</font>
I suggest you read them, all three variations of them, ranging from 9 to 14 commandments, if I recall correctly. It also includes the commandments relating to animal sacrifice, destroying of other temples, plus the "I the lord thy god am a jealous and angry god" quote. (if he's a jealous and angry god, does that not imply that they're more?)
I recommend this article: http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa070899.htm?terms=ten+commandments
The problem with the argument that (the judeo-christian) God is necessary for ethical decisions lies in this:
(1) take the assumption that the ten commandments form a basis of an ethical life
(2) there are several versions, all of which are puported to be the word of God
(3) choosing which one to live your life by is an ethical decision, as is abbreviating them, translating them or otherwise altering them
(4) By not living your life by the ten commandments, you say that ethics are possible without them
(5) By living your life by the ten commandments, you have made an independant ethical decision in choosing a version
(6) (4) and (5) show that every creature on this planet is capable of ethical decisions without recourse to the ten commandments
QED (as far as I know, latin for Neh neh nE ne neh!)<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...when we leave morality to our own consciences, without an enforced black and white, what happens?</font>
Utopia? Afacism? a return to Eden, to use a biblical analogy?<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And if harm is caused, can it be justified as being for the greater good? Another can of worms.</font>
A little harm never hurt anyone<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Then we must ask who is anyone? The definition of who is a person and who is not has been debated using philosophical, ideological and scientific arguments for ages. Flexibility in defining a person has allowed slavery and genocide over the centuries.</font>
This brings up two interesting points: I take it from the above paragraph that you'll agree that flexibility of definition can lead to slavery, genocide and racism? You'll note that there are three versions of the ten commandments, and history has shown that the bible can be interepreted to justify just about anything - how are religious rules then useful?
And if I can go slightly askew and onto Christianity and abortion, if life starts at conception, and 75% of foeti abort naturally, (IIRC) presumably without having had the chance to accept Jesus as their lord and saviour, would that not mean quite a few billion in hell? That's off topic, and you probably aren't even a Christian (in that I don't know of your beliefs) but it's a thought that struck me.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The problem, ultimately, with moral relativism is we can warp it to suit our ends.</font>
Same with the bible... gimmie something to justify with it, it could take me a few hours but I'll get it.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">When does "Thou shall not harm anyone" become ”Do what thou wilt, that is the whole of the law"?</font>
Tomorrow, if I had my way.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So I would contend that Religion does have an active place in society, like it or not, believe in it or not.</font>
I can't say I agree with your argument, but look forward to discussing it, if you are so inclined.
edit: closing tag
[This message has been edited by scutchy (edited 03-09-2001).]0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
True, but absolute does not necessarily equal good. </font>
True. But my argument was more on the inherent weakness in moral relativism, that is to say absolute is stable, not good.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I suggest you read them, all three variations of them, ranging from 9 to 14 commandments</font>
Immaterial. I was not discussing the Ten Commandments per say, just the Ten Commandments as an example. Most organised religions have their own, and often similar set of ethical rules.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
(6) (4) and (5) show that every creature on this planet is capable of ethical decisions without recourse to the ten commandments</font>
True, but as I explained these ethical decisions without recourse to the ten commandments (or other set of theocratically defined rules) are inherently mutable.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Utopia? Afacism? a return to Eden, to use a biblical analogy?</font>
Consumerism? Nazism? Whatever we can justify to ourselves as right? Sodom and Gomorrah to use another biblical analogy<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Same with the bible... gimmie something to justify with it, it could take me a few hours but I'll get it. </font>
Yes. That’s a fair point. But organised religions rewriting the rules are a more stable set up than every individual rewriting the rules, however hypocritical.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Tomorrow, if I had my way.</font>
And on Wednesday, the rule is ”The weak must perish”. After all, culling the weak is for the greater good and a little harm never hurt anyone
Good article, btw.
"Just because I'm evil doesn't mean I'm not nice." - Charlie Fulton0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
Given the high rate of teenage pregnancy, and unmarried mother etc, vs say Holland where the sex education is comprehensive and the rate of unwanted pregnancy is so much lower.
</font>
yeh but just look how the standard of football drops
0 -
-
Aargh! I'm using netscape on a laptop, so apologies for the formatting here.
>>True. But my argument was more on the inherent weakness in moral relativism, that is to say absolute is stable, not good.
And that I see as the inherent weakness in moral absolutism. Morality is, in many ways, relative. In the middle ages, when life expectancy was lower, teenagers were often married off by their parents to suitable partners. While that was the appropriate thing to do at the time, there would be uproar if anyone were to try that now, and rightly so.
In old testament times, eating pigs was dangerous as they were more likely to have parasites and cause ill health. Thus the people adopted the moral that it was wrong to eat unclean flesh. Appropriate at the time, but no longer, IMO.
If we look around the world, all constitutions (IIRC) have a clause whereby they can be updated and changed. All laws can be added to and taken from. For instance, it is no longer appropriate to arrest taxi drivers for not carrying a bale of hay to feed their horses with
I feel that we can agree that moral absolutism is stable though, but I'm not sure if I understand your percieved weakness with relativism.
>>Immaterial. I was not discussing the Ten Commandments per say, just the Ten Commandments as an example. Most organised religions have their own, and often similar set of ethical rules.
Ah - my apologies. Personally I feel that any moral code will either have exceptions or leave the whole thing up to personal choice. I have none, and live by my inner nature, something I learned from my cat.
>>True, but as I explained these ethical decisions without recourse to the ten commandments (or other set of theocratically defined rules) are inherently mutable.
My point was that you cannot decide to accept a moral code without making an ethical decision. If you can make one, you can make many, and therefore have no need of a moral code.
>>Consumerism? Nazism?
Two examples of the masses accepting a moral code without trusting their inner nature or possessing all the facts.
>>Whatever we can justify to ourselves as right?
I'm all in favour of that.
>>Sodom and Gomorrah to use another biblical analogy
They sounded like fun cities
>>Yes. That’s a fair point. But organised religions rewriting the rules are a more stable set up than every individual rewriting the rules, however hypocritical.
Organised religions could **** up a cup of coffee, and while I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, I still don't fully understand the benefit of this stability you espouse. I'd much rather each individual lived by their own conscience and inner nature than by adopting the rules of another. How many times has the phrase "I was only following orders" or "I did it in the name of God / Jesus / Allah / Satan / etc" been used to condone atrocities?
>>And on Wednesday, the rule is ”The weak must perish”. After all, culling the weak is for the greater good and a little harm never hurt anyone
Great! we've got there the antithesis of what I proposed, society living by a moral absolutist creed, "the weak must die." An absence of morals does not imply going out with the express aim of committing what people would consider evil. It is not in my nature to cull society of the weak; in fact it's more in my (human) nature to protect them, where fesable.
If the public hadn't been brainwashed into thinking that they're inherently evil and need a moral code to prevent them from killing and raping etc, they'd realise that the human nature is an alutristic one.0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bonkey:
Not so.
Taking these in order...by not living your life by the n commandments, you show that you live your life by a different set of standards. You have not shown that these are not religious in origin nor influence, simply that they are not the n commandments.</font>
Exactly so, and our two statements can peacefully coexist. I was just getting at the ten commandments, not moral codes in general, which I am also against.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">By living your life by the n commandments, you have not necessarily made an ethical decision. You may have made a religious decision and altered your ethical beliefs in order to fit your religious persuasion.</font>
So changing your ethics is not an ethical decision? I don't see how you can justify this without recourse to a semantical debate.
But, if we take the decision to live by the ten commandments as a religious one, would you see the choice of which set, which translation and which interpretation as an ethical one? You must make the choice between what you see as good an bad...
>>So, 4 and 5 are not completely true (but not necessarily incorrect either), and do not lead to your 6th conclusion.
I feel they do, in the case of the ten commandments.
>>I argue that historically, religion has defined and refined our moral and ethical beliefs.
I would argue that religion has taken basic ethics that are inherent in human nature due to an instinctive family relationship orientation and ego boundaries that expand beyond ourselves, attempted to make solid what shoud be fluid, and messed things up. Ethics, good nature and alutrism predate religion by eons - take my cat for example.
>>For a country to enshrine something in law because it is the will of the people does not make it religious in nature. However, the will of the people *is* religious in nature.
What percentage of the Irish population would you honestly say is religious? Excelsior and I are not at all religious in nature, are we off the mark?
>>Ergo, it is impossible to seperate law and religion.
While some religions have taken common sense ideas and claimed them for their own, that does not imply that they are impossible without religion. I've read about a quarter of the catholic catechism; I very much doubt that there exists a single person in Ireland who knows it by heart and lives by it. People use their inner nature to various degrees, the more the better IMO.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Finally, taking your notion that you would change the law to "Do what you will"....
You would support my right to shoot you down in the middle of a street with no reprisals?</font>
Do you want to shoot me? Is it in your nature? If all that is holding you back at the moment from killing me for the fun of it is the fear of punishment, I suggest you remove yourself from an ethical debate
<kidding>
My ideal (and I realise that it is unattainable, for the forseeable future at least) would be a society where people live according to their inner nature, without morals.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Think about it...you are basically saying that you support a completely anarchistic state,</font>
I merely state that I would rather live in a society that did good without hope of reward, avoided bad without fear of punishment, and lived according to their conscience and inner nature. I can only realistically acchieve this by becoming a hermit, sadly.
>>which in the abesence of Utopian individuals
Maybe utopian individuals are those who live by their inner nature? Just a thought.
>>Exactly why are you in facour of this?
Not entirely in favour of this, I'd just like people to live together in harmony without the need for enforced rules because that's what they feel like doing. I wish it wasn't such a pipe dream...
[/B][/QUOTE]
0 -
Thats exactly the problem though...its a pipe dream.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
I'd just like people to live together in harmony without the need for enforced rules because that's what they feel like doing. I wish it wasn't such a pipe dream...</font>
Allowing people to live accoridng to their "inner nature" would inevitably give legitimacy to the actions of those who want to be violent, oppressive, and so on. These traits are a fact of life which we cannot ignore.
This is why I questioned your comments about being in favour of this. If you view humanity through rose-tinted-glasses, then of course a law-less society is a great thing.
If you view humanity through a realistic lens, then you see that it isnt a grat idea as it would achieve nothing without first having a dramatic change in human nature.
I know you're aware of this because you acknowledge that your ideal is a pipe dream. My problem with pipe dreams is that people try to defend them as the right way to live.
They arent.
They would be the right way to live if the world were a completely different place. However, given the world today, you cannot seriously be in favour of anarchy, as it is only workeable in a pipe-dream. Much like communism really
jc0 -
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
And that I see as the inherent weakness in moral absolutism. Morality is, in many ways, relative. </font>
Morality is relative. That’s why one needs moral absolutism to stop it spinning into anarchy. A third party point of reference that all can follow.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I feel that we can agree that moral absolutism is stable though, but I'm not sure if I understand your percieved weakness with relativism. </font>
One can justify anything to oneself as morally good. The old adage of a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged is a fair example of this, in that a moral or ethical is shaped and warped by personal experience. But does that make it right, just because you had a bad day?
Were Hitler bullied in school by Jewish classmates, would that make it acceptable for him to construct a personal morality that saw them as evil vermin? A rich man may see meritocracy as just, while a poor man may see it as unjust, citing socialism as a moral path. Who is right?
All differing morals and ethical values and beliefs. Which is all right as long as you believe that you should not harm others. Yet that in itself is another moral value, another ethical guideline. Should you impose that? And which version? I’ve already demonstrated that even that simple tenant can be twisted to suit whatever we want. And it is, every day. Multiply this lack of coherence by the population of the World - Chaos.
At least these beliefs are constant. No? Do you believe the same thing now that you did at 15 years of age? Or at 25? Or 30, 35? Hardly stable.
Society requires a stable framework for individuals to pursue their lives and happiness. Peaceful and productive co-existence with others means we must compromise to find a common framework. If there are as many goals as there are there are people, and these goals are permanently changing, how peaceful do you think co-existence will be?
And no, people are not going to eventually all going to come to the same conclusion off their own accord. That’s axiomatic and flawed.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> It is not in my nature to cull society of the weak; in fact it's more in my (human) nature to protect them, where fesable. </font>
Your nature, not necessarily mine or anyone else’s. That’s the flaw in moral relativism.
Modern medicine has allowed many that would not have survived and reproduced in prehistoric times to do so. Perhaps compensating for this is a good thing for the species. The area of eugenics has cropped to mind a few times when stepping over homeless on the street...<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> If the public hadn't been brainwashed into thinking that they're inherently evil and need a moral code to prevent them from killing and raping etc, they'd realise that the human nature is an alutristic one. </font>
Is it? I fear I don’t share your optimistic appraisal of human nature. And history, with or without the aid of organised religion would tend to agree with me. Does man do good for purely altruistic reasons, or is it a result of guilt, or that it makes them feel good? Is, subconsciously, at the core of all man’s actions a selfish purpose, however cloaked in self deluded charity?<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Do you want to shoot me? Is it in your nature? If all that is holding you back at the moment from killing me for the fun of it is the fear of punishment, I suggest you remove yourself from an ethical debate</font>
You shouldn’t impose your absolute moral or ethical values upon someone else. No doubt he feels that such behaviour is just and good, from his own perspective
"Just because I'm evil doesn't mean I'm not nice." - Charlie Fulton
[This message has been edited by The Corinthian (edited 04-09-2001).]0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Excelsior:
Maybe you should read your copy of Bunreacht na héireann. One of the most impressive elements is the equal rights it affords all theistic religions.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A STATE RELIGION IN IRELAND.</font>
CoughMONOtheistic religionscough
Although some could argue that this goes against Catholicism
Anyway, that's mere semantics and I agree with your point. That said, I still aint happy about being obliged to publically worship God, as I recall Jesus being against that sort of thing.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It would be foolish and arrogant in the extreme to disregard the contribution that the Catholic Church has made to education in this country, excepting radical and not very common cases of abuse generations ago</font>
I do not disregard the contribution of the founder of free education in this country, Catherine McAuley. As a young woman in a patriarchal society, she inherited what would be in todays terms a million quid, and formed a religious order, in my view the only way at the time a woman could have had influence in Irish society.
Personally I believe if you're going to help someone, you should do it without ulterior motives, but apart from that, she lived a good life, and as an atheist, I've defended her picture on the back of fivers.
Also, I believe a good catholic education is most likely to encourage free thought, skepticism and atheism, although not intentionally.
As for the abuse cases, generations ago? Try my generation mate. Personally, I believe that a society where parents used to force weak-willed sons into a celibate life where natural sexuality is repressed without any system of dealing with it really didn't think things through. The abusers need help, for they have also suffered injustice, in a milder form. What really gets me raging is that fact that the catholic church covered up the abuse cases for so long, moved abusers to fresh pastures, and the average joe soap wouldn't testify against a priest, because priests are good and speaking out against them will send you to hell with the burning and the fire and the poking.
I do value all of my catholic education, and bear no malice at the ethos therein. It cost me less than this laptop, and has stood me well.
That said, the biology teacher taught evolution as a theory...<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Remember also that many great scholars today are Catholics- it is not a medieval organisation that retreats from learning...
Because of Copernicus and Gallileo (both of which have received apologies) you should not presume that the Catholic Church is a universally uneducated anti-science, anti-learning instutuion.</font>
IIRC, Gallileo was pardoned in 1990. hardly quick off the mark, are they? And they are still anti safer sex education in Africa, with one bishop spreading false information about condoms, saying that they cause deformed babies (source: the tablet)<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And on the topic of the Angelus, the reason that it is maintained is because it is popular. I know no muslims who find it offensive.</font>
I know of a mosque that was asked to make their calls to prayer silent by the local catholic community. Dont'cha just love the double standards? I like the angelus as it gives me a chance to catch the BBC headlines.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">For the record, as most know already, I am a radically anti-Catholic free Christian.
(Protestant in your language)
for the record, I'm also rabidly anti-Catholic. How the hell do we always end up arguing?
good posting with you mate, regards to all.
[/B]</font>
0 -
Greetings, the Corinthian,
This lousy laptop has stopped cutting and pasting, so my apologies if I paraphrase your post incorrectly.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Morality is relative. That's why one needs moral absolutism to prevent it spinning into anarchy. A third party point of reference that all can follow</font>
I take it we both agree that morality is relative, and I for my part would agree that were there a perfect moral code, it would be worth following.
But there isn't.
In fact there isn't one single moral that does not have exception or requires recourse to personal judgement.
So they're really a waste of time<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">One can justify anything to oneself as morally good</font>
Quite true. I've mixed with neo nazis, sexists, antiathiests, homophobics - the scary ones aren't the stupid ones, but the ones who have intellingence and have researched and debated their points of view - I could probably take a fair stab at defendign any of the above from what I've learnt from them.
But there's always a problem - generally in how they understand themselves, how they understand and relate to the dao, and how well developed their ego boundaries are.
In healthy, well balanced individuals, you don't see these problems.
I feel it's more useful to encourage the development of such individuals than to try and regulate a society of unbalanced people.
Society is changing and evolving - it is alive. Were we to carve morals in stone and never change them, it would be dead. My lifestyle would prove very psychologically damaging to most - I'm travelling through Europe, sparring martial artists dog brother's rules that I met on the internet, staying with complete strangers / sleeping in train stations, and that's just the stuff I intend posting - try telling all of society to do that. Better still, try and tell me not to
Anyway, as we have no possible moral code, why debate? can you suggest a code?
You mention that although it is not in my nature to cull the weak, it may be in the nature of others. While there may be situation in which culling the weak is appropriate, it generally isn't. As I've said, balanced individuals don't do this kind of thing.
I would say that humankind does good for the following reasons:
Ego boundaries, empathy. Before we are born, objectively speaking, we are gods. We exist everywhere that is known. We can do anything it's possible to do. We know everything there is to be known. After we're born, we gradually begin to define where we end and the world begins, but it's never perfect. So if I see someone in pain I identify with it; it's sometimes easier for me to help them then not.
Co-operation is the nature of the universe. You don't see your stomach saying "Sod this lark, why should I digest food for everyone else? I'm off!" Ever try complete solitude for a few days, with no technology? It can be a wonderful experience, but you miss human interaction.
Our society is a bit of a mess. We are overly ruled - we have ads to tell us what food we want and what will make us happy. As we stop listening to our sense of hunger, we grow fat. We have social graces that destroy natural stretching mechanisms like yawning, leading to more health problems. The shoes we wear prevent the correct use of toes and foot rotation, leading to walking sticks. The drinking culture pushes us another way, advertising persuaded some of us that smoking is cool, people actually believe coke tastes nice, and we have people telling us the difference between right and wrong from dusty, self-contradicting books that they don't even follow themselves to destroy our natural sense of morality.
(note - I see a difference between having morals and being moral. I'm an amoralist, but am moral)
With all these imbalances in society and attacks on our inner selves, it's a wonder things aren't a lot worse. The solution is not more rules, it is fewer.0 -
Hallo Geoff.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
In healthy, well balanced individuals, you don't see these problems.
I feel it's more useful to encourage the development of such individuals than to try and regulate a society of unbalanced people. </font>
You claim, and genuinely believe, that we all have natural positive instincts - when, quite honestly, nothing but eating, drinking, going to the toilet, breathing and having sex are natural to us.
Everything else is as a result of nurturing and not nature. Therefore, we can't simply assume that people will generally turn out fairly balanced if we encourage them to listen to their "natural instincts" and it is also irresponsible of us as a society to leave people with serious behavioural problems to their own devices. An amoral society is not a caring society, and that is what we are striving for. It is all well and good to discuss well-balanced individuals - but as much as we like to kid ourselves - not one of us is well balanced. We are all cheerfully dysfunctional in some form or another.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
The drinking culture pushes us another way, </font>
Scutch, how can you complain about non-rigorous morals when you yourself are so utterly non-rigorous? How much did you drink with that guy you met in the park the other day??
Maybe the fact morals are not definitive for every case makes them more human than you would like to believe?<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
people actually believe coke tastes nice,</font>
Okay Scutch, morals may be relative, but taste isn't?! The taste of Coke or anything else is a matter of personal inclination.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
Ego boundaries, empathy. Before we are born, objectively speaking, we are gods. We exist everywhere that is known. We can do anything it's possible to do. We know everything there is to be known. After we're born, we gradually begin to define where we end and the world begins, but it's never perfect. So if I see someone in pain I identify with it; it's sometimes easier for me to help them then not.</font>
Are you serious? This sounds like pseudo-spirituality to me here - coming from an atheist too...
Look, this is utter crap and you'd never dare say this to my face in an argument because this one can be eaten up and spat out again in about three sentences. Sounds remarkably like Niechtze to me...that dirty sexist rotter.
Empathy is something that is a result of experience - or the result of being taught to be sensitive to the feelings of others, Both symptoms of nurture - not nature.
One final point - let us use the analogy of a child responding to its circumstances in order to grow into a well-balanced individual. It needs boundaries - with room for movement. It needs discipline - a healthy amount to teach it to socialise and remain safe.
It is no different to when we become adults. Societies where we are all trusted to develop ourselves into well-balanced individuals with positive healthy attitudes and free-thinking abilities do not and cannot exist.
You may not like this fact Geoff, but you are your parents, you are your brother, you are your best friend, you are your MA instructor, you are each of your teachers and lecturers and you are me.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Nah - I doubt it. Coke is a blackish sugary liquid invented in paris buy a man who was trying to break his cocaine habit. The recipie changed hands a few times until it became a major international industry. Have a look at the advertising - coke is associated with youth, happiness, children's birthday parties, santa claus (the concept of santa wearing red, coca cola's colours, comes from coca cola itself) and thirst refreshing. (which, incidentally, is impossible with a sugary syrup.)<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by androphobic:
uhhh..... maybe cos some people actually like it? [coke]
</font>
The advertising creates associations which make people think they want to drink it, so they do. It's popular in Africa because mothers think it's what first world families give to their children and is therefore better.
To take another example, Budweiser. Everyone wonders how they get the cat to squat over the keg, but everyone drinks it - and the budweiser frogs rule
Look around you - people are eating what they are advertized, not what they are hungry for. From a young age we start the association of being good = chocolate treats and such. And what is the result?0 -
Hallo Geoff.
Greetings, oh intellectual sparring partner.
>>You claim, and genuinely believe, that we all have natural positive instincts - when, quite honestly, nothing but eating, drinking, going to the toilet, breathing and having sex are natural to us.
I prefer inner nature to instinct, as there's a slight difference, but nonetheless... Are ants taught how to cooperate? Do birds fly south in groups in a fashion that reduces wind resistance because of some major cosmic joke? And do packs of dogs all just happen to pick on the same prey and share it afterwards because of what they learnt in doggy school? Do fish swim in shoals because of traffic regulations?
Humans are cooperative by nature. If not, we would have no need of language, such a wide variety of facial muscles, art, music or literature. We wouldn't be able to learn together in the dojo, and complete strangers wouldn't give me free accommodation. I'm staying in France with a friend because we like training together (I think he cracked some of my ribs btw - felt like getting hit by a baseball bat) and life is frankly a lot more fun when you're experiencing it with someone else.
>>Everything else is as a result of nurturing and not nature.
I challenge you to nurture a cat not to sharpen its nails and hunt. You might be able to do one, but a whole species?
>>Therefore, we can't simply assume that people will generally turn out fairly balanced if we encourage them to listen to their "natural instincts"
I would disagree - children have to be taught hate and fear. You have to be taught that you don't listen to your sense of hunger; you eat what's advertised as tasty at predefined mealtimes. You have to be taught that your body shape should conform to a societal norm - I could go on.
>>and it is also irresponsible of us as a society to leave people with serious behavioural problems to their own devices.
You want to be a psychologist, right? So you want to help people with serious behavioural problems, right? And in a society that does what it wants, what would you do?
>>An amoral society is not a caring society, and that is what we are striving for.
Quite right - it is not something that should be forced, but something that should come naturally.
>>It is all well and good to discuss well-balanced individuals - but as much as we like to kid ourselves - not one of us is well balanced. We are all cheerfully dysfunctional in some form or another.
Well-balanced and dysfunctional are different terms Seriously though, my combative (for lack of a better term) yang side is balanced by a more caring ying - although by societies standards I am dysfunctional, I am only slightly unbalanced - and working on it, of course. Hmm... just had an idea for a thread...
>>Scutch, how can you complain about non-rigorous morals when you yourself are so utterly non-rigorous?
Not sure I get you on this one - I think people should be free to choose wether they drink or not - society can pressure people into drinking.
>>How much did you drink with that guy you met in the park the other day??
As much as I wanted (5 cans and some whiskey, for the record)
>>Maybe the fact morals are not definitive for every case makes them more human than you would like to believe?
As I said, there are two types of morals: those that have exceptions, and those that require you to use your inner nature. That would fall in the latter category.
>>Okay Scutch, morals may be relative, but taste isn't?! The taste of Coke or anything else is a matter of personal inclination.
See previous post.
>>Are you serious? This sounds like pseudo-spirituality to me here - coming from an atheist too...
Come on, you're not doubting ego boundaries, are you? you might want to rapidly change courses if you are... Might I suggest a flick through "Life - and how to survive it" and/or "Families and how to survive them" by Robin Skynner and John Cleese - unique in that they examine "mental olympians" - the truly well balanced individuals of society. I might have them lying around somewhere... I'd dig up a few urls but I'm in a rush atm.
>>Look, this is utter crap and you'd never dare say this to my face in an argument because this one can be eaten up and spat out again in about three sentences.
I don't come here to win - I post my newest and most controversial thoughts, hopefully have someone try and rip them to shreds, think about it some more, reexamine it and then hopefully come away with something useful. Hey, I'm a troll!
>>Sounds remarkably like Niechtze to me...that dirty sexist rotter.
I was in his garden in Germany - I left him a little something on your behalf...
>>One final point - let us use the analogy of a child responding to its circumstances in order to grow into a well-balanced individual. It needs boundaries - with room for movement. It needs discipline - a healthy amount to teach it to socialise and remain safe.
What you just mentioned is the child coming to realise that it's ego boundaries do not extend beyond itself. (so neh!)
>>It is no different to when we become adults.
So you still have a bedtime and someone to change your nappies? Come on, the need for rules deminishes with maturity - I just propose with complete maturity, you don't need the rules.
>>Societies where we are all trusted to develop ourselves into well-balanced individuals with positive healthy attitudes and free-thinking abilities do not and cannot exist.
Correction: HUMAN societies...
>>You may not like this fact Geoff, but you are your parents, you are your brother, you are your best friend, you are your MA instructor, you are each of your teachers and lecturers and you are me.
I'm not proposing we shun all outside influences! That would be hermitage taken to an extreme - no thanks. As I've said, humans cooperate and interact, but they also learn from each other, and grow as individuals. The most mentally unhealthy individuals I have ever met are those who have shut themselves off from society - either by not interacting or by building mental blocks that no-one could traverse, avoiding societies influence.
Look at cults - no outside interaction, no media, enforced views (and morals) and a general attitude of superiority, usually including a "cult members will be saved but those dirty outsiders will perish" mentality. Hardly well balanced.
It is rare to meet someone that I don't learn something from, or that doesn't change me in some way, and in my opinion, it's always for the better.0 -
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
Humans are cooperative by nature. If not, we would have no need of language, such a wide variety of facial muscles, art, music or literature. We wouldn't be able to learn together in the dojo, and complete strangers wouldn't give me free accommodation.</font>
Humans can be cooperative by nature. However, they can also be competitive, and/or dominative.
Take a look at your dogs hunting in packs. They are cooperative. Yet, within each pack, there is a "top dog" who has had to fight for his place in the group.
We are no different - we have a cooperative nature which has helped us survive as a species, but within the species, we have a competitive nature.
I believe that as civilisation is taking hold (and it is a relatively new development), we are encountering a dramatic change, whereby a lot of our survival traits are no longer necessary nor useful.
As a result, I believe people do not know how to use these traits effectively. Ideally, we would like to think that the violent traits would die out, in favour of the "living in harmony" traits, but it could equally be argued that in any group, supremacy through power will always hold an attraction, and therefore we will not be able to get rid of what is often misrepresented as the "darker" side of human nature.
I think fear is a survival trait - it is far deeper than something you get taught. You get made afraid...but you already knew how to be afraid. There is a difference. Hate is a mix of the same again, and social engineering which has defined hate as a more extreme form of dislike.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I would disagree - children have to be taught hate and fear.</font>
These I agree with, except that they are nowhere as near as strong as your previous examples, in that they do not affect all people, and they are things which can be broken.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You have to be taught that you don't listen to your sense of hunger; you eat what's advertised as tasty at predefined mealtimes. You have to be taught that your body shape should conform to a societal norm - I could go on.</font>
I dont think its possible to remove fear from an individual. Nor is it possible to remove dislike (which hate is the extreme case of), but you can learn to control these urges.
On the other hand, bodyshape, dress style, and eating habits....conforming to the norm...are traits which people can and do break with quite frequently.
Damn....I must be a troll as well.....except that my self-appointed role is usually as Devil's Advocate.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I don't come here to win - I post my newest and most controversial thoughts, hopefully have someone try and rip them to shreds, think about it some more, reexamine it and then hopefully come away with something useful. Hey, I'm a troll!</font>
Can you name any social species which does not have the same limitations. I cant.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">>>Societies where we are all trusted to develop ourselves into well-balanced individuals with positive healthy attitudes and free-thinking abilities do not and cannot exist.
Correction: HUMAN societies...
</font>
jc0 -
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
Were we to carve morals in stone and never change them, it would be dead.</font>
But they do change, we’ve already established that. I’ve never debated that morality was not relative or that the moral code handed down by religion was any more just than that from the individual. Only that it is more stable.
It changes; all we have to look at is history. It’s just slower. A lot slower.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Anyway, as we have no possible moral code, why debate? can you suggest a code?</font>
No, as my core point is that moral codes are best left to a third party, such as a religion, rather than each individual.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You mention that although it is not in my nature to cull the weak, it may be in the nature of others. While there may be situation in which culling the weak is appropriate, it generally isn't. As I've said, balanced individuals don't do this kind of thing.</font>
That’s your perspective. Perhaps they are the balanced individuals, not you. It is equally viable that your philosophies are a product of reaction to authority combined with the lure of New Age fashion (a more ‘happy-clappy’ rebranding of Socialism). What makes you right and them wrong? You’re beginning to sound like a priest
That’s another inherent flaw in moral relativism. The moment you disagree with the moral or ethical viewpoint of another and take action, you become absolutist.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So if I see someone in pain I identify with it; it's sometimes easier for me to help them then not. </font>
Again, that’s you, not another. And philosophically you can’t say that they are anymore well balanced than yourself without assuming that your version of relative morality is right and everyone else’s is wrong.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Co-operation is the nature of the universe. You don't see your stomach saying "Sod this lark, why should I digest food for everyone else?</font>
It can’t. Co-operation implies compromise and loss of freedom for the greater good. The group over the individual.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The drinking culture pushes us another way, advertising persuaded some of us that smoking is cool, people actually believe coke tastes nice, and we have people telling us the difference between right and wrong from dusty, self-contradicting books that they don't even follow themselves to destroy our natural sense of morality.</font>
Your natural sense of morality is assumptive. It is based more on romanticism than empirical evidence. Neither of us could prove whether human nature is one way or another as all argumentative evidence for it is circumstantial.
However, I suspect my circumstantial evidence would be a lot stronger than yours.
"Just because I'm evil doesn't mean I'm not nice." - Charlie Fulton
[This message has been edited by The Corinthian (edited 07-09-2001).]0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement