If an invisible man in the sky tells me the theater I am in is on fire, is it moral to stand up and shout,** “Fire!!” ** ?
If you genuinely believe that God is telling you that the theater is on fire, and you believe him, then yes it is moral to stand up and shout, “Fire.”
I’d suspect you were schizophrenic, but you’d be acting morally.
I’d say that there are two aspects to your belief: an objective and a subjective one.
If you genuinely believe that there is an invisible man in the sky, then your action is subjectively reasonable and, I would say, moral as far as you are concerned.
If your belief is objectively reasonable as well, then everyone should agree that your action is reasonable.
Doesn’t this open the door to rationalizing all kinds of acts that would create terror? Isn’t this what the Inquistion did? Were they not certain in their beliefs?
“Mysterious ways” is a shrug, not an answer. I reject it outright. What’s not to understand? What am I not getting? If God can’t explain himself to in a way that is ethically satisfying to me then he’s not much of a God. I’m not submitting to anything I feel is evil and I feel that a God who who punishes good people because they failed to guess the magic number is evil. If I can’t trust my own moral compass, what can I trust? God is going to have to conform to my morality, I’m not conforming to his.
Yup. So what?
The question of whether or not someone is acting morally is different then the question of whether or not their beliefs are objectively correct.
Sure. So what? That’s not what the word proselytize means.
Of course it is! How can you say this is immoral. Just because it bugs you? Where did you get the idea you’re allowed to live cloistered away from any ideas with which you disagree? That’s emphatically not the way America works. (Apologies if you’re not American, but I think I recall that you are.)
But there is so much pain in store for you if I can’t get you to believe me. Of course I’m honor-bound to get you to my way of thinking. Anyway, where is it written that you have to listen? Nowhere. Much, much more importantly, where is it written that you’re not allowed to proselytize the proselytizer? Nowhere.
Bricker, [Dio**, can we keep the problem of evil to a different thread? The correctness of a religious theory doesn’t seem to me to bear on the morality of a good-faith adherent spreading the word. Obviously it can’t, because there are proselytizers of different, mutually exclusive sects. Their moral worth cannot be measured simply by whether they’re knowledgeable or not, especially since there is no evidence acceptable to all observers about who really is right or not.
–Cliffy
That’s not the point. The point is that people are not morally excused for their actions just because they sincerely believe their God wants them to do it.
The guys who crashed those planes into the WTC sincerely believed they were doing the will of God. Osama bin Laden probably believed it. Does that mean the action was not immoral? Is an action only immoral if a person believes it’s immoral?
Is that your way of thinking? Sounds to me like you’re trying to win us over to that viewpoint.
Well no shit. But you prove too much. The morality of an action is not (fully) dependent on whether it’s done out of a sincere conviction that one is acting rightly; moreover, the morality of an action is not dependent on whether the sincere conviction happens to be correct.
–Cliffy
I said that in my first post, which was the very first post after the OP. I understand the perspective and am not trying to argue with it the same way Anaamika was.
Thanks, the irony is delicious. :rolleyes:
In case that’s insufficient - actually, I don’t think it is. If this thread is going to turn into a game of “you said , therefore you’re proselytizing with it” I’ll find better ways to waste my time.
Is the distinction I’m drawing here - on one hand, a discussion held by two people who don’t agree but can share ideas and perhaps enhance each others understanding, and on the other hand and one person proselytizing to try and covert another to his ideology - really that thin? I don’t think it is. If I’m wrong, it would seem to me that proselytizing is basically the same thing as talking, which renders the term meaningless.
I really don’t think there is a problem with a guy going door to door peddling his religion. However I think that when you go to desperate people in need of aid and try to get them to change their religion there is something at least morally questionable about that. Its similar to say giving someone a shoulder to cry on while the entire time your motivation was to sleep with that person. In general there is nothing wrong with sex or religion but when you take advantage of someones need or weakness for your own gain that seems to me atleast morally questionable.
In the late TV series “Wonderfalls,” the lead character, Jaye, was told to do various seemingly random and crazy things by otherwise inanimate animal figurines (lawn flamingoes, stuffed bears, wax lions, and the like). Because this was a TV show, we, the viewer, were able to see and understand all of the effects of these actions. For example, in one episode, Jaye deliberately smashes the back of a car belonging to a priest; the priest has been visiting the area for reasons relating to another story thread.
Now, if we left the incident there, you might reasonably conclude that the voices Jaye hears are malicious - that they don’t conform to your moral compass. After all, they have just damaged property, for no good reason.
As the priest is leaving the area, he’s stopped by the police for the non-functioning tailight… and a routine check of his license reveals that there’s a warrant out for him for unpaid child support. He’s stunned to hear this – he had no idea he had a child. As we eventually learn, before he entered the seminary, he had a relationship with a woman who got pregnant but chose not to tell him; after financial pressures became too great, she tried to track him down but couldn’t, applied for financial aid, and of course had to list the father’s name. So, Father learns he’s a father, and much good ensues.
Is it absolutely impossible to believe that an act that appears senseless, even destructive, from your limited prespective on the ground is actually interacting with other events that you cannot see or comprehend? Or is your personal sensory perception and mental capacity to understand things the absolute possible limit in the universe, and if you cannot comprehend and understand something, it simply doesn’t exist?
If the irony makes you uncomfortable, well… it should. The statement “It’s wrong to be so sure that you’re right that you must win other people over to your way of thinking” is simply self-refuting.
I very much agree with that. If a god is nothing but a perfect tyrant, then said god cannot be good.
Off-track in the first sentence. Tch. Their motivation is to help people. Just like the proselytizers. They feel they’re in a position to do so. Just like the proselytizers. Or, frankly, just like anyone who’s ever offered someone else helpful advice.
Or, even if the Caucasian Americans are better off, one could argue that the program represents discrimination in and of itself, and is therefore paradoxical and unjust.
You were going along fine, then you lost me. An action which causes unintended, unexpected harm is not ipso facto immoral. An act which causes intentional, expected harm is not guaranteed to be immoral, even.
Ahh, so anonymous good deeds, by this logic, since they allow the one who benefits no chance to say ‘Actually, I might be able to help YOU out in this regard…’, are immoral. Because the benefactor, by remaining anonymous, has precluded any chance of being convinced by those who would benefit that they did not need his assistance.
I am acknowledging - and have acknowledged - that some prosetlyzing is OK, and even good & moral. I’ve backed down from my original position.
As for the person who implies that not wanting people to come to my door and change my views is somehow…let’s see:
“Where did you get the idea you’re allowed to live cloistered away from any ideas with which you disagree?”
I don’t agree one bit that wishing my door not to be darkened by these people is equivalant to living cloistered away from these ideas! Just a bit of hyperbole there, don’t you think? Do I not see these ideas everywhere? I just don’t agree you have any right to be at my door, preaching to me.
However, this discussion has gotten way over my head, as debates often do in GD. I’ll bow out, but continue listening and reading and I’ll post again if I have something to contribute.
rfgdxm, I didn’t necesarily say Dopers say these things. I was challenging Dopers to provide reasons why these things were moral. Please don’t take everything personally.
No, there is absolutely no hyperbole there. You don’t have a right to ignorance. If someone comes to your door and you don’t want to hear them, you can just close the door, you know.
–Cliffy