Is Morality a Joke?

Great Debates
41

Hijack of a (somewhat) hijack ahead, with apologies ahead of time:

Despite my weariness at seeing the “religion is evil/not evil” thing starting again, it did trigger a question for our resident militant atheist Der Trihs: you seem to be focused on organized religion, and I’m wondering where the limits, if any, are on what you consider organized religion, and thus what you consider “evil.” Do you count Buddhism? Wicca? Satanism? Whatever you call what Native Americans used to/presently pursue? Some guy who decided on his own that he has an animal totem, and pursues it without any input from, or export to, others?

IOW, I’m wondering which matters more to you in counting evil: religion trying to influence the larger sphere, or what you see as its attacks on rationality by encouraging belief in the non-physical. (Granted, there’s overlap there, but not entirely, and I hope you see what I’m getting at.)

42

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
You assume such a seperation exists. And you are pretending religion is all about kindness and morality and the people who do evil or stupid things in it’s name are perverting it, as opposed to doing what it tells them…
<snip> (see post just above)
[/QUOTE]

There is a separation between what leaders do in the name of a religion and what adherents do in terms of their behaviour toward one another.

It is very naive to suppose that leaders who have initiated unworthy causes in the name of religion have done so out of a sincere desire to follow the core principles of the religion. What you have instead are naughty people who attempt to control the masses or the culture using religion as a prop. This is a reflection on the gullibility of the masses, perhaps, but not a reflection on the value system of the religion itself (see the list of religions I gave above).

It may make for good rhetoric to castigate religions so violently and with such a broad brush, but it is careless and inaccurate to do so.

Perhaps you would like to take some core principles from the teachings of Gautama Siddhartha or Jesus and show how they support the bad behaviour which you ascribe to those two particular traditions. It is the failure of religions to transform leaders that has been unfortunate and that has led to bad things being done in the name of religion. It is not a consequence of the religion itself (excepting, perhaps, Islam, but that is another topic).

I would sooner have the opportunity to live in a society filled with folks earnestly trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ than a society filled with folks trying to dope out their morality from scratch. Arguments over the supernatural aside, the fundamental imperatives of behaviour in most modern religions are beneficial.

43

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Actually religion does a lot more good than bad, expecially these days when there are no more inquisitions and crusades.
[/QUOTE]
There’s zero evidence of that. It’s just another empty assertion by the religious.

[QUOTE=Leaper]
Despite my weariness at seeing the “religion is evil/not evil” thing starting again, it did trigger a question for our resident militant atheist Der Trihs: you seem to be focused on organized religion, and I’m wondering where the limits, if any, are on what you consider organized religion, and thus what you consider “evil.” Do you count Buddhism? Wicca? Satanism? Whatever you call what Native Americans used to/presently pursue? Some guy who decided on his own that he has an animal totem, and pursues it without any input from, or export to, others?
[/QUOTE]
The bigger organized religions, and the very small tend to be worse, IMHO. The big ones because they have power, the little ones because they often have more of a concentration of true believers. While I don’t see any reason to believe in a ‘good’ religion, some are certainly worse than others. Of the biggest ( I think ) 4 religions, I’d rate them morally, worst to least bad like so : Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism. As for the Native Americans, they didn’t have a religion, they had many religions. They’d each have to be judged seperately.

[QUOTE=Leaper]
IOW, I’m wondering which matters more to you in counting evil: religion trying to influence the larger sphere, or what you see as its attacks on rationality by encouraging belief in the non-physical. (Granted, there’s overlap there, but not entirely, and I hope you see what I’m getting at.)
[/QUOTE]
Trying to influence the larger sphere tends to be more evil; encouraging irationality is more insane than evil. Unless they realize that they are encouraging irrationalty, which goes right into evil territory.

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
It is very naive to suppose that leaders who have initiated unworthy causes in the name of religion have done so out of a sincere desire to follow the core principles of the religion. What you have instead are naughty people who attempt to control the masses or the culture using religion as a prop. This is a reflection on the gullibility of the masses, perhaps, but not a reflection on the value system of the religion itself (see the list of religions I gave above).
[/QUOTE]
Oh ? Like ‘Thou shalt have no other Gods before me’, upon pain of eternal torment ? Which rather naturally leads to wars of conquest, conversion by the sword and so forth. You can pretend that people who do such things are perverting their sweetness and light religion, but in reality it’s the Pat Robertsons, Torquemadas and Fred Phelps of the world that represent the core values of their religions better.

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
Perhaps you would like to take some core principles from the teachings of Gautama Siddhartha or Jesus and show how they support the bad behaviour which you ascribe to those two particular traditions.
[/QUOTE]
The belief in the soul comes to mind. Believing in souls makes concerns for your life and other’s lives irrational. Another would be the concept of faith, which is a form of madness; the denial of reality.

Not that I consider either Christ or Siddhartha all that important. They just started the religions in question. It’s the religions that matter.

44

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I rarely find someone who doesn’t know the meaning of love, but you have asked a fair question and I will answer it.

“Love is very patient and kind, never jealous or envious, never boastful or proud, never haughty or selfish or rude. Love doesn’t demand its own way. It’s not irritable or touchy. It doesn’t hold grudges and will not notice when others do it wrong. It’s never glad about injustice, but rejoices in truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends”. – Saint Paul.
[/QUOTE]

That quote doesn’t really answer my question, nor does it make much logical sense. How can you hope both that someone lives and someone dies? Believe that there is a god, and is not a god? What is this truth that love is rejoicing in? Can you give some sort of specific example, and how it applies as a moral principle to every culture? Are you saying that, in every culture, the concept of love exists, or that everyone in every culture is encouraged to love everyone?

Plus, not noticing when anyone does you wrong sounds to me like a good way to get completely and totally walked over.

45

[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
Objective morality is a bit like god - you can’t prove it exists and you can’t prove it doesn’t. If you can’t prove an objective morality exists, let alone what it contains, then it’s indistinguishable from not existing.
[/QUOTE]
Can you prove that statement to be true? If not, then by that reasoning, how is it indistinguishable from non existing?

46

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I rarely find someone who doesn’t know the meaning of love, but you have asked a fair question and I will answer it.

“Love is very patient and kind, never jealous or envious, never boastful or proud, never haughty or selfish or rude. Love doesn’t demand its own way. It’s not irritable or touchy. It doesn’t hold grudges and will not notice when others do it wrong. It’s never glad about injustice, but rejoices in truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends”. – Saint Paul.
[/QUOTE]

Feh. Who died and made his the last word on love? You can’t define the words you use in your definition (rude, patient, kind, irritable, etc.) in any universal way, making your (his) definition useless.

The closest thing to universal morality stems from empathy, which is by no means universal. We can hope that other people place the same value on these things as we do, but history indicates it ain’t necessarily so.

47

[QUOTE=Yag Rannavach]
That quote doesn’t really answer my question, nor does it make much logical sense. How can you hope both that someone lives and someone dies? Believe that there is a god, and is not a god? What is this truth that love is rejoicing in? Can you give some sort of specific example, and how it applies as a moral principle to every culture? Are you saying that, in every culture, the concept of love exists, or that everyone in every culture is encouraged to love everyone?

Plus, not noticing when anyone does you wrong sounds to me like a good way to get completely and totally walked over.
[/QUOTE]

It completely answers the question of what love is, and, yes, every religion teaches love. As for truth, you will know truth when you find it, everyone does, it is a built in thing.

As for getting walked over, that is a perception. It differs from person to person. Everyone is centered in love, but most have focused only on material things, and have not discovered the love within them. In order to find the love within you need to go within, probably double-talk to you now, but the day will come when you will understand.

48

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Feh. Who died and made his the last word on love? You can’t define the words you use in your definition (rude, patient, kind, irritable, etc.) in any universal way, making your (his) definition useless.

The closest thing to universal morality stems from empathy, which is by no means universal. We can hope that other people place the same value on these things as we do, but history indicates it ain’t necessarily so.
[/QUOTE]

Love is universal, not one group or society that does not display it daily. Unfortunately they display it only to those in their group. Jesus wanted us to show love to anyone and everyone. Unconditional love is the most powerful force in the universe. But the only way you will find that out is to practice it every day which takes more courage than most of us have available.

49

[QUOTE=JThunder]
Can you prove that statement to be true? If not, then by that reasoning, how is it indistinguishable from non existing?
[/QUOTE]
Really? Given these premises…
[ol]Entity A exists.
[li]We are not detecting any properties of A.[/li][li]Entity B does not exist.[/li][li]Entity B is thought to exist.[/li][li]We are not detecting any properties of B.[/li][li]In order for us to distinguish between two entities, there must be at least one detected property that differs between them.[/li]
…aren’t these conclusions obvious?
[li]There are no detected properties of A that differ from the detected properties of B.[/li][li]A is indistinguishable from B.[/ol][/li]Which premise or conclusion would you dispute?

50

[QUOTE=lekatt]
It completely answers the question of what love is, and, yes, every religion teaches love. As for truth, you will know truth when you find it, everyone does, it is a built in thing.
[/QUOTE]

No, it doesn’t. It introduces more questions and more vaguely defined terms, and does not illuminate what love is.

As for truth, well, if recognition for truth is built into human nature, then every lie would be expose immediately. Every lie is not exposed immediately, further, some lies are never exposed. Therefore, recognition for truth is not built into human nature.

So, love the wife that comes home and beats you every day, and don’t leave because your love makes you patient. Don’t leave because leaving would be unkind to them. Your needs are meaningless, the only needs that matter are those of the ones you love? If they need to kill you to be happy, then maybe you should help them along? Give them a gun?

I’m not asking you to tell me how to find love. I’m asking you to define love. If you can’t define love, then any debate about whether or not love is a universal moral principle or not is meaningless, we’re dealing a concept that could(and does) have a very different meaning depending on who is talking.

51

[QUOTE=Yag Rannavach]
No, it doesn’t. It introduces more questions and more vaguely defined terms, and does not illuminate what love is.

As for truth, well, if recognition for truth is built into human nature, then every lie would be expose immediately. Every lie is not exposed immediately, further, some lies are never exposed. Therefore, recognition for truth is not built into human nature.
So, love the wife that comes home and beats you every day, and don’t leave because your love makes you patient. Don’t leave because leaving would be unkind to them. Your needs are meaningless, the only needs that matter are those of the ones you love? If they need to kill you to be happy, then maybe you should help them along? Give them a gun?

I’m not asking you to tell me how to find love. I’m asking you to define love. If you can’t define love, then any debate about whether or not love is a universal moral principle or not is meaningless, we’re dealing a concept that could(and does) have a very different meaning depending on who is talking.
[/QUOTE]

I did define love, you just didn’t like the definition, sorry. That has been the definition for centuries.

What is it that you don’t understand?

52

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I did define love, you just didn’t like the definition, sorry. That has been the definition for centuries.

What is it that you don’t understand?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t understand how you would apply that definition to certain situations. Does your definition of love mean that it is universally accepted, in every culture, that you stand by those you love, even if they’re causing extreme pain/suffering to you?

If so, I disagree with you. That is not a universal moral principle. If not, then your definition seems to have problems.

53

Love means never having to say you’re sorry.

Failing that, “Love is…” is a series of cutesy little cartoons featuring two naked children that used to appear, and maybe still appears, in the funnies section of American newspapers.

I’m afraid, lekatt, that the “definition” you gave for love was little more than a series of platitudes that do not seem to applicable to real life.

Marc

54

[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
Really? Given these premises…
[ol]Entity A exists.
[li]We are not detecting any properties of A.[/li][li]Entity B does not exist.[/li][li]Entity B is thought to exist.[/li][li]We are not detecting any properties of B.[/li][li]In order for us to distinguish between two entities, there must be at least one detected property that differs between them.[/li]
…aren’t these conclusions obvious?
[li]There are no detected properties of A that differ from the detected properties of B.[/li][li]A is indistinguishable from B.[/ol][/li]Which premise or conclusion would you dispute?
[/QUOTE]

You were not talking about whether something had detactable properties or not, though. Rather, your exact words were:

“If you can’t prove an objective morality exists, let alone what it contains, then it’s indistinguishable from not existing.” (Emphasis added.)

Those two claims are not equivalent. For example, many physicists believe that black holes exist, since they have found areas of space that seem to correlate with the behavior of black holes. Does this mean that their existence is proven?No, it doesn’t; however, that doesn’t stop them from believing in their existence.

Similarly, what about the claim that “If you can’t prove an objective morality exists… then it’s indistinguishable from not existing.” As I asked earlier, can you prove this to be true? If not, then by that same logic, we should reject this claim. (Remember, we’re asking about proof, not mere evidence.)

Rational people believe a great many things that cannot be proven. For example, I cannot prove that the world around me exists. For all I know, I could be a disembodied brain that’s floating in a vat and being fed false imagery. For that matter, I cannot prove that you exist. For all I know, you are nothing but an elaborate AI program that’s been built into the SDMB servers (and perhaps nursed along by its programmers whenever its algorithm falters).

Indeed, you apparently maintain that only things which are provable are worth believing. Based on our discussion here, this seems to be an unproven belief on your part. If its not truly proven, then how can you believe it?

55

[QUOTE=JThunder]
You were not talking about whether something had detactable properties or not, though. Rather, your exact words were:

“If you can’t prove an objective morality exists, let alone what it contains, then it’s indistinguishable from not existing.” (Emphasis added.)

Those two claims are not equivalent. For example, many physicists believe that black holes exist, since they have found areas of space that seem to correlate with the behavior of black holes. Does this mean that their existence is proven?No, it doesn’t; however, that doesn’t stop them from believing in their existence.

Similarly, what about the claim that “If you can’t prove an objective morality exists… then it’s indistinguishable from not existing.” As I asked earlier, can you prove this to be true? If not, then by that same logic, we should reject this claim. (Remember, we’re asking about proof, not mere evidence.)

Rational people believe a great many things that cannot be proven. For example, I cannot prove that the world around me exists. For all I know, I could be a disembodied brain that’s floating in a vat and being fed false imagery. For that matter, I cannot prove that you exist. For all I know, you are nothing but an elaborate AI program that’s been built into the SDMB servers (and perhaps nursed along by its programmers whenever its algorithm falters).

Indeed, you apparently maintain that only things which are provable are worth believing. Based on our discussion here, this seems to be an unproven belief on your part. If its not truly proven, then how can you believe it?
[/QUOTE]
Ah. If it’ll settle your complaint, I have no problem revising my statement to:If there’s no evidence of an objective morality existing, let alone what it contains, then it’s indistinguishable from not existing.It still conveys my intention. My apologies if the original failed in that respect.