How is it moral to proselytize?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

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.

Wonderfalls is a fiction which has the known existence of God - and the known communications of God - built into its premise. In real life, God isn’t telling me anything. My dilemma is not about whether I should trust what God tells me to do but whether I should trust what people tell me God wants me to do…and people can’t seem to agree on that. The books they use are seriously flawed and unreliable and the things that people tell me God wants often strike me as illogical or immoral therefore I reject them because I have to stay loyal to my own conscience above all else. If God exists, then God gave me that compass. Socrates said that he had a daimon inside him which didn’t always tell him when he was right but never failed to tell him when he was wrong. I feel that way about my own conscience. If I can’t trust that then I can’t trust anything and I’m certainly not going to take the word of human beings or their flawed and contradictory books about what some magic, invisible spirit wants me to do.

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 I feel that an action is wrong, and if God is unwilling to give me any evidence to the contrary, then I’m not going to do it. I will not submit to anything that cannot be ethically explained to my own personal satisfaction. If God wants me to do something, he can tell me himself, and he can tell me why, and even then I might still say no (like if he wanted me to kill Amekalite babies, for instance). It would at least require a whole lot of explaining and frankly, I do think that some of the things which God has reportedly ordered people to do would be absolutely impossible for even God to justify.

[Orbifold]

@CandidGamera

Off-track in the first sentence. Tch.

That’s some pretty weak snarking, I have to say. If you can’t snark better than that then we should probably just keep having a reasonable discussion.

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.

My point is that the reasons why they think their help is necessary, which are also part of their motivations, are relevant to the discussion.

An action which causes unintended, unexpected harm is not ipso facto immoral.

No, but if that action is based on an unfounded certitude that the actor’s beliefs are correct, then the harm has taken place because the actor has acted irresponsibly. That makes it immoral.

Which, I should point out, does not necessarily relate to proselytization. I’m not arguing that proselytization necessarily causes harm; that’s not what proselytization has in common with your hypothetical.

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.

Bad analogy. Proselytization is more than an act of charity, it is an assertion about fundamental and in many cases deeply personal truths about the universe and people’s place in the universe.

If I send a care package to a soldier anonymously, I’m not asserting anything more contentious than the fact that maybe the soldier would like a care package. In particular, I haven’t asserted in any way that there’s nothing the soldier could do for me. But if I walk up to a man on the street and claim dogmatically that I know the one true way to get into heaven, then not only am I asserting that I have answers to important spiritual questions but I’m implicitly asserting that any answers he thinks he has which contradict mine are wrong. Anonymous good deeds don’t imply that the recipient is incapable of good deeds on their own, but dogmatic proslytization does imply that the recipient cannot provide their own insight into spiritual truth.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Cliffy

No, there is absolutely no hyperbole there. You don’t have a right to ignorance.

Really? Cite? Where is it written that Americans are mandated to be informed about Christianity?

If someone comes to your door and you don’t want to hear them, you can just close the door, you know.

What makes you think you have a right to knock on my door in the first place?

[CandidGamera]

@Orbifold

That’s some pretty weak snarking, I have to say. If you can’t snark better than that then we should probably just keep having a reasonable discussion.

I calls’em like I sees’em.

My point is that the reasons why they think their help is necessary, which are also part of their motivations, are relevant to the discussion.

With regard to the morality of the act, I obviously disagree.

No, but if that action is based on an unfounded certitude that the actor’s beliefs are correct, then the harm has taken place because the actor has acted irresponsibly. That makes it immoral.

There we go. There’s the missing leap. I wonder about your standard for ‘unfounded’. Sharing a point of view or information based on one’s perceptions and feelings is not irresponsible. Sharing information or a point of view that you are UNCertain about, without clearly designating them as uncertain, would be. And even then, there’s a huge leap from irresponsible to immoral. An irresponsible act from which you could not reasonably expect harm to another, that just-so-happens to harm another, is not immoral.

Which, I should point out, does not necessarily relate to proselytization. I’m not arguing that proselytization necessarily causes harm; that’s not what proselytization has in common with your hypothetical.

Okay.

Bad analogy. Proselytization is more than an act of charity, it is an assertion about fundamental and in many cases deeply personal truths about the universe and people’s place in the universe.

Just trying to ‘bracket’ your position here.

If I send a care package to a soldier anonymously, I’m not asserting anything more contentious than the fact that maybe the soldier would like a care package. In particular, I haven’t asserted in any way that there’s nothing the soldier could do for me. But if I walk up to a man on the street and claim dogmatically that I know the one true way to get into heaven, then not only am I asserting that I have answers to important spiritual questions but I’m implicitly asserting that any answers he thinks he has which contradict mine are wrong. Anonymous good deeds don’t imply that the recipient is incapable of good deeds on their own, but dogmatic proslytization does imply that the recipient cannot provide their own insight into spiritual truth.

Let’s put forth another example, then. Necessarily, it must be slightly different from proselytizing, as you’ll see.

Person A is talking to Person B. Person A mentions that they’re off to the movies, to see “Loving Lovers Love, Part 2”. Person B retorts that LLL2 is a yawn-fest, and that “Action-stravaganza!” is a much better movie to go see. Person B cannot be swayed. He is certain that “Action-stravaganza!” is the better movie. He is certain. Perhaps he is even arrogantly so. Convinced by Person B’s empassioned praise for “Action-stravaganza!”, Person A goes to see it, rather than LLL2.

Is Person B’s recommendation of a movie choice for the evening somehow immoral because he refused to be swayed to another point of view?

Does his recommendation somehow become “irresponsible” retroactively if Person A does not care for “Action-stravaganza!”, or worse, Person A is severely injured when “Action-stravaganza!”'s cinema partially collapses, while LLL2’s cinema is spared?

Does his recommendation become more moral if it turns out he was correct?

[Orbifold]

Sorry for the delay. Stupid real life…anyway, moving on.

@CandidGamera

Is Person B’s recommendation of a movie choice for the evening somehow immoral because he refused to be swayed to another point of view?

Yes, albeit mildly so due to the mostly trivial nature of the decision. By recommending the movie in the way that he did, Person B is attempting not only to impose his view put implicitly deny that Person A can contribute to the decision.

Does his recommendation somehow become “irresponsible” retroactively if Person A does not care for “Action-stravaganza!”,

“Retroactively” doesn’t enter into it. If Person B was assuming without justification that Person A would enjoy the movie, then the recommendation was irresponsible in the first place (again, albeit mildly so). On the other hand if Person B did have a good reason to think that Person A would enjoy the movie, then the recommendation wasn’t irresponsible.

Again, I should point out that this doesn’t necessarily relate to my position here on proselytization. I’m not trying to address the issue of whether or not a proselytizer’s beliefs are well-founded; I’m just harping on the arrogance aspect of things. But you asked.

or worse, Person A is severely injured when “Action-stravaganza!”'s cinema partially collapses, while LLL2’s cinema is spared?

Person B had good reason to assume, if he thought about it at all, that the cinema would not collapse. I’m not going to blame Person B if Martians invade the cinema, either.

Does his recommendation become more moral if it turns out he was correct?

No. I’m addressing the means, not the end.

[Kozmik]

@Bricker

He could be lying, mistaken about what the white water meant, or even confused about whether this river is the same one he saw yesterday.

It cannot be the same river he saw yesterday. Do you know why?

[CandidGamera]

@Orbifold

Yes, albeit mildly so due to the mostly trivial nature of the decision. By recommending the movie in the way that he did, Person B is attempting not only to impose his view put implicitly deny that Person A can contribute to the decision.

Now I have a handle on your position, and I can see we will never agree. Morally good deeds can be done in a jerkish attitude without tarnishing their moral value, in my opinion. Morality isn’t about how abrasive or short-sighted you are, it’s about whether or not you have a genuine desire to help someone.

“Retroactively” doesn’t enter into it. If Person B was assuming without justification that Person A would enjoy the movie, then the recommendation was irresponsible in the first place (again, albeit mildly so). On the other hand if Person B did have a good reason to think that Person A would enjoy the movie, then the recommendation wasn’t irresponsible.

Person B thought he had a good reason to believe Person A would enjoy the movie. Whether a reason is “good enough” or not is entirely subjective, wouldn’t you say?

[Kozmik]

“…that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died.”

• President William McKinley, after gaining the Philippines as US territory

[cosmosdan]

@CandidGamera

Now I have a handle on your position, and I can see we will never agree. Morally good deeds can be done in a jerkish attitude without tarnishing their moral value, in my opinion. Morality isn’t about how abrasive or short-sighted you are, it’s about whether or not you have a genuine desire to help someone.

Really? Was Dr. Kevorkian moral or immoral? If a Christian bombs an abortion clinic to save babies and kills Doctors and nurses, is he moral or immoral?

Who gets to choose if an act is moral or not? Only the individual or does society get a vote as well?

In your movie analogy my problem is that person B assumes his truth about which movie is good and why is also the truth for somone else. I find that arrogance to be immoral.
I feel the same about proselytizing. If someone wants to share their philosophies or beliefs with me in a form of discussion I have no problem with that. They had better be prepared to defend their beliefs with more than their personnal interpertation of some book. If they can honor and respect other individuals right to choose to believe differently then the exchange can be uplifting for both people.
Are religous beliefs based on things that aren’t true potentially dangerous? If someone believes a lie and then shares that lie with others as if it is the truth is that immoral? The problem with proselytizing is that zealots who have embraced myths and lies taught by others then pass on these lies as the word of God. They find others who are eager to be told what to think.

[cosmosdan]

@Kozmik

“…that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died.”

• President William McKinley, after gaining the Philippines as US territory

I had never heard this quote before. It’s dam scarey to think of it coming from a president.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@cosmosdan

I had never heard this quote before. It’s dam scarey to think of it coming from a president.

It expresses an attitude that probably wasn’t all that unusual a little over 100 years ago (the “white man’s burden”?). And even from today’s perspective, I have mixed feelings about it. If sincere, it’s at least based in good will and a desire to help (as opposed to, say, “Let’s go exploit the hell out of them”). It could be worse—compare this attitude with President Andrew Jackson’s towards the American Indians.

[CandidGamera]

@cosmosdan

Really? Was Dr. Kevorkian moral or immoral? If a Christian bombs an abortion clinic to save babies and kills Doctors and nurses, is he moral or immoral?

As to the first, my memories are a bit fuzzy on what Kevorkian did, exactly. I remember his assisted-suicide machine. If that’s the extent of it, then absolutely. There is a second component of my definition of morality that we never got to, since the debate abated, but it’s “rationality”, for lack of a better word. The second example gets cut out by that clause. “Is my action more likely to directly help more that it directly hurts?” and that sort of thing. The second action’s not rational in that sense; it’s also hypocritical.

Who gets to choose if an act is moral or not? Only the individual or does society get a vote as well?

Well, everyone, since we’ve established repeatedly that morality is relative.

In your movie analogy my problem is that person B assumes his truth about which movie is good and why is also the truth for somone else. I find that arrogance to be immoral.

Good for you? I don’t. I don’t find any attitude or state of mind “immoral”. You can prosecute thoughtcrime in Oceania once you get it set up, Big Brother, but don’t count on my assistance.

[Mtgman]

@Cervaise

Bricker’s waterfall analogy doesn’t, um, hold water.

Let’s see if the analogy can be fixed.

Two people in kayaks, same river, same direction. One pulls over and shouts “Get off the river, there’s a waterfall ahead” to the other.

The other answers “How do you know? I don’t see any waterfall.”

“I see a warning carved into this tree. It says ‘Wat fal 100 fet’. I think this means there is a waterfall 100 feet further on.”

“That doesn’t make any sense. What is a ‘fet’?”

“Probably just a transcription error, or the carver was tired. Or maybe some animal stripped off part of the bark and obscured part of the message. It still seems clear enough.”

“Ok, if there is a waterfall 100 feet ahead I should be able to see the tops of trees up ahead where they stick up over the cliff. I shouldn’t be able to see their trunks and bases because they’re down lower at the new ground level. I can see trunks all the way down on both sides of the river.”

“Maybe they have really tall trunks. Or maybe it is such a high waterfall that you can’t see the trees at all because even their tops are below the cliff level. The warning is clear though, you should stop and come over here and we’ll try to find a portage together. What have you got to lose?”

“Well, I’m enjoying my row. Stopping to carry the kyak down a portage when there is no falls would be a pain for no reason. If there is a falls we should be able to see the water accelerating due to the molecules adhering to each other as they go over and pulling the ones behind them along faster. The water seems smooth and calm as far as the eye can see.”

“I don’t understand why there would be smooth water in front of a waterfall, it’s a mystery. You don’t understand everything about water or rivers either, but the message is still clear. In fact, maybe that’s why the message is here, BECAUSE there aren’t other signs. This makes it even more important to believe the message because you would never know otherwise!”

“There are plenty of ways to tell if a waterfall is ahead. Trees, water speed, riverbanks being steeper and sharper. None of those are in evidence to confirm the cryptic message you found.”

“ARRRGGG! Please turn back! I don’t want you to die!”

“I don’t want me to die either, but I have no reason to believe I am about to die.”

“It’s in the message! Waterfall ahead!”

Enjoy,
Steven

[cosmosdan]

@CandidGamera

As to the first, my memories are a bit fuzzy on what Kevorkian did, exactly. I remember his assisted-suicide machine. If that’s the extent of it, then absolutely.

Well, he actively supported assisted suicide for the terminally ill. He thought he helping people. Others thought he was a murderer. Then absolutely what? It wasn’t a yes or no question.

There is a second component of my definition of morality that we never got to, since the debate abated, but it’s “rationality”, for lack of a better word. The second example gets cut out by that clause. “Is my action more likely to directly help more that it directly hurts?” and that sort of thing. The second action’s not rational in that sense; it’s also hypocritical.

Is it? If the bomber thinks that by killing one abortion doctor and a couple of abortion nurses he’s saving dozens of babies, it seems like it does more good than harm.
My point is that someone who is sincerely trying to help can still be doing something immoral.

Good for you? I don’t. I don’t find any attitude or state of mind “immoral”. You can prosecute thoughtcrime in Oceania once you get it set up, Big Brother, but don’t count on my assistance.

Really, so the attitude of Nambla isn’t immoral?
Now you’re just being goofy. I never proposed anything like that. We are talking immoral not illegal.
Strangely enough Christians who feel the moral imperative to proselytize would find arrogance to be a sin and therefore, immoral.
The problem isn’t wanting to share the good news of God’s love. It’s the assumption of a person to think they know God’s will for someone else. It’s the assumption that their interpertation of God is the only “right” one and that their targeted convert should accept their words as God’s will.

[CandidGamera]

@cosmosdan

Well, he actively supported assisted suicide for the terminally ill. He thought he helping people. Others thought he was a murderer. Then absolutely what? It wasn’t a yes or no question.

“Yes, moral” - to clarify.

Is it? If the bomber thinks that by killing one abortion doctor and a couple of abortion nurses he’s saving dozens of babies, it seems like it does more good than harm.
My point is that someone who is sincerely trying to help can still be doing something immoral.

Rationality clause.

Really, so the attitude of Nambla isn’t immoral?

And what attitude is it that this acronym possesses that vexes you so?

Strangely enough Christians who feel the moral imperative to proselytize would find arrogance to be a sin and therefore, immoral.

Would they? Really? You’re 100% sure? All of them?

It’s fun to speak in absolutes, but I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you for a cite.

[Cliffy]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Really? Cite? Where is it written that Americans are mandated to be informed about Christianity?

Americans aren’t mandated to be informed abot anything. But the First Amendment exists – on its face and as its purpose – to foster vigorous debate about public issues. To suggest otherwise is to reject the principles on which this country was founded.

–Cliffy

[cosmosdan]

@CandidGamera

“Yes, moral” - to clarify.

Although he was charged with a crime.

Rationality clause.

So, good intentions don’t always qualify as moral?

And what attitude is it that this acronym possesses that vexes you so?

I ask that you answer my question before asking one of your own.

Would they? Really? You’re 100% sure? All of them?

It’s fun to speak in absolutes, but I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you for a cite.

Since I wasn’t speaking in absolutes I offer none.
My implication was in general, not all of them. Do you argue that christians, generally speaking, don’t see arrogance as a sin?
The reasons for proselytizing vary greatly from person to person. I’m sure many christians would not see their beliefs as arrogant. I maintain that when you assume to speak for God and that you know his will for others based on a book written 2000 years ago or your personnal beliefs, then that is arrogance, even if you don’t recognize it.

[eleanorigby]

Don’t some groups have almost a quota system for prosletyzing/converts? I vaguely remember an article in TIME or on Sixty Minutes about those kids who are bused in from wherever (usually a red state) and go door to door, prosletyzing. IMS, they were supposed to also get magazine subscriptions(the premise to stop doors being slammed in their faces), which in turn put the hapless customer on some sort of mailing list of conservative(of course) Christian groups. So, you thought you were getting a little God talk and a cheap subscription to X magazine, but it served another purpose. But there was a hook for the kids–either they had to put up their own money and earn it back or were on some sort of commission basis. Does anyone remember this? I think a busload of these kids crashed and all were killed about 3 or so years ago. Cripes, I’m in GD and my brain is melting. Sorry.

Is the selling of the mags in itself immoral? No (but obnoxious)
Is the door to door presentation of Jesus in My Life immoral? No (but obnoxious)
Is the use of teens to do this, with the expected quotas, under the guise of just selling mags with a top layer of feel good religion? Why, yes (and obnoxious).

[CandidGamera]

@cosmosdan

Although he was charged with a crime.

What’s your point?

So, good intentions don’t always qualify as moral?

I’ll have to refer you back to my first reply to you, since you clearly didn’t read it.

I ask that you answer my question before asking one of your own.

Your question is based on incorrect assumptions. An Acronym possesses no ‘attitude’, nor do anagrams, palindromes, or abbreviations. If you refer instead to the group NAMBLA, then again - a “group” does not possess an attitude.

Since I wasn’t speaking in absolutes I offer none.
My implication was in general, not all of them. Do you argue that christians, generally speaking, don’t see arrogance as a sin?

They’d really have no reason to do so. I argue that if you contend they generally do, then you generally need to back that up with some general evidence.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Cliffy

Americans aren’t mandated to be informed abot anything. But the First Amendment exists – on its face and as its purpose – to foster vigorous debate about public issues. To suggest otherwise is to reject the principles on which this country was founded.

–Cliffy

You’re changing the argument. You said upthread that Americans “don’t have a right to be ignorant” about Christianity. That is a much different assertion than saying they have a right to speak, to debate or to be informed. Yes, Americans have a right to engage in vigorous debate, but they are not madated to do so, and in matters of religion they are permitted to be precisely as informed or as ignorant as they see fit.