Then who is a friend of ethics? I would say that atheism - which Leopold and Loeb have long proven has the potential to create a complete amorality - is the worst enemy of ethics.
Actually, I regret saying that, because no doubt we’ll start a long dispute on what ethics is and isn’t, and perhaps the fine-tuned distinctions between ethics and morals. I’m going to keep it in there anyway, because most people will understand.
[quote]
According to YOU. I simply regard them as another parasite class of religious frauds, with a sprinkling of people deluded enough to buy into the lies.
One more time, hopefully the last. Parasitic organisms take against the will of the hosts. Since the monks don’t take, they aren’t parasites. A pious person such as myself would regard it as an excellently mutualistic relationship; at the very least, they’re commensalist, in that they don’t negatively effect those that they benefit from.
Unless, of course, you think that those birds sitting on the back of rhinos are parasites. But then, your major sin is a failure to stay awake in biology class.
Hardly. Obeying a god’s or religion’s orders is not ethics; it’s obedience. And nothing is better than religion for creating complete amorality, for that reason among others ( such as it’s followers working form false premises ). Religion is, at best, amoral, and only goes down from there.
Nonsense. A parasite can subvert the will ( or whatever term you want to use for lower animals ) in order to prosper; such as the worm that manipulates ants into getting eaten. Or it can use deception. Religion uses both techniques.
No, they provide a service, and don’t harm the rhino, nor do they deceive it. All the opposite of religion.
Unlike the government they aren’t commiting massacres at the moment. A plus in their favor. But “doesn’t massacre people” is a low hurdle, and doesn’t make them morally superior to just plain people.
Ethical behavior is ethical behavior, whatever motivation goes into it. Most atheists are not amoral, but there is no ideological failsafe should they decide that it’s not worth it.
Go on, Der Trihs. If you could be assured that there was a 100% likelihood of never being caught, then what possible reason would there be not to commit crimes that benefit you at the expense of others? And before you cite the obvious, what is the empirical difference between an action that is moral and an action that is amoral? If there’s no reason to believe in final justice - that is to say, if there are no deeds with which one cannot get away - then why restrain if you can get away with it?
Like I said, the clear majority of atheists aren’t amoral, but just as Christian beliefs can be abused to produce events universally regarded as atrocities, athiest beliefs can be similarly abused.
Jeez, now we’re getting into some Descartes shit. I’m gonna step aside from that and simply ask you to elucidate on the nature of this worm. What’s its taxonomical name?
Replace ‘religion’ with ‘the Thudhamma Nikaya,’ or ‘the Theravada monkhood,’ or even just ‘Buddhist monks.’ Then create a sound argument - that is to say, an argument exclusively using true premises and a conclusion that necessarily follows them - in defense of all three points. If you can do this, I will give you a point.
In fact, your problem as a whole is that you seem to have this amorphous entity in your mind called ‘religion,’ and you are unable to distinguish within it. I am not a Christian, and while I can respect individual Christians I am operating on a totally different theological worldview from them. However much your arguments may or may not be tolerated amongst the sects with which you are familiar, you will find infinitely less validity here.
This is EarlyAdopter here:
At the Kuthodaw Pagoda in Mandalay, there are 731 stone slabs, arranged in a neat grid. If X1Y1 is at the very northeast corner, X is east-west and Y is north-south, then go to X2Y1. Each one of these stone slabs has something written on it. This one is the Samannaphala Sutta. Among other things, X3Y1 has the following written on it, in Burmese and translated into English by H.H. Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
“Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, engage in scheming, persuading, hinting, belittling, and pursuing gain with gain, he [the virtuous monk] abstains from forms of scheming and persuading [improper ways of trying to gain material support from donors] such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.”
Do some monks do this? I’ve met some. But considering that this is an integral part of the monk’s discipline, I think it’s a little unkind to characterize all of them as doing this.
Sympathy/empathy is the only friend to ethics. Some people are better at it than others, in and out of religion.
Religion tends to encourage sympathy with “approved” people (other members, and in some religions people in general), and discourage it with “disapproved” people (non-members, atheists, gays). If you think that religion makes people more moral/ethical, it’s probably because you’re hanging around religious people who “approve” of most of the people around them, including you. If you find yourself to be “disapproved” by the prevalent religion of an area, your opinion of their ethics would likely change very quickly.
The morality of atheism, on the other hand, is the simple baseline: some people are better at it than others. If you are not surrounded by atheists, you will likely only be aware of their ethics through examples significant to be noticed, and people always notice bad news more. People don’t gossip about the polite atheist who never did anybody any harm.
As for parasitism, I agree with Der Trihs that parasitism does not need to be against the will of the host; something is a prolonged relationship parasite if it benefits from something else to the detriment of that other thing. (According to wikipedia, anyway.) Thus, the monks are parasites if they take more from the community than they give. As Der Trihs is likely to see less value in many of their religious services to the community than you do, it may be impossible for you to agree with him on this issue.
Edit:
The answer is guilt. Guilt avoidance is main non-fear-of-punishment reason that atheists are eithcal, and it’s also the main non-fear-of-punishment reason that theists don’t give God the finger and do what they want. So, atheists are on the same footing as theists.
Nor is there any for the religoius. Religion is made up. God, or Buddha, or whatever’s orders are what YOU say they are. Religion cannot restrain people from unethical behavior, because people can and do tell themselves that their religion says what they want it to say. Or they listen to priests and monks that tell them that it says what the monks and priests want it to mean. You can’t build an ethical foundation on lies and delusions, and that’s all religion is.
And obedience is not “ethical behavior”. The same person who does good only because he’s told to do so will cut the throat of an unbeliever if told to do so.
Because it would be wrong ? Because it would hurt people, and I actually care more about that than imaginary overlords ?
Wrong on both counts. first, the people who do awful things for religion generally aren’t abusing their religious beliefs, but following them. The belief in the soul, alone, is a prescription for sociopathic behavior.
And second, atheists don’t have “atheist beliefs” to abuse in the first place. An atheist does not believe in gods, and that’s all. That’s only one belief, and it’s so neutral it’s hard to imagine what would qualify as “abuse”.
Dicrocoelium dendriticum. It needs to get eaten by sheep as part of it’s life cycle, and crawls into ant’s brains and makes them crawl up stalks of grass just so they get eaten.
Rather like religion manipulates people to their deaths as martyrs, in order to spread itself. I’m not the first to notice the similarity.
Buddhism was not made up, sir, it was discovered, in the same sense that the position and motion of the stars was discovered. But I’ll move past that. Organized religion, in and above its spiritual dimension or lack thereof, is a social construct. Are you seriously telling me that social constructs don’t control people’s behavior?
Sho’nuff it is. Because what if that order never comes? Ethics are determined by action, not by intent. Ethically, a person that hates everyone and wants to kill them but never does is on the same level as a person who never wants to hurt anyone. Only the actual product is significant!
[quote]
Because it would be wrong ? Because it would hurt people, and I actually care more about that than imaginary overlords ?
[quote]
What philosophical school do you subscribe to? I’m guessing you’re an empiricist. If so, then what is the a posteriori difference between a right and wrong action? Is there an a priori one? Can you create a sound argument - with correct premises and valid arguments - that differentiates ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actions?
They may not be abusing their personal beliefs, but they are abusing the tenants of the religion to which they purportedly proscribe - as evidenced by the fact that those tenants are, at least in my case, literally carved in stone.
It is my general understanding - and I apologize if this is not so - that atheists believe in materialism, which is not only to claim that there are no supreme or supernatural beings, but also that there is no such thing as the soul and thus no life after death.
Materialism is correct. (a pr)
A soul is non-material. (a pr)
There is no such thing as a soul (1,2)
The characteristics and records of one’s soul is the sole determinant of one’s position in the afterlife. (a pr)
There is no differentiation of people in the afterline; whatever sort of existence or oblivion occurs after death, it is the same for everyone. (3,4)
The possibility that a soul’s destination in the afterlife or lack thereof is dependent on the average ethical level of everybody is kinda laughable and has never been proposed. (a pr)
Therefore, the afterlife or the lack thereof will be the same no matter what a person does. (5,6)
Therefore, there are no inescapable negative consequences for ‘unethical’ behavior, meaning action that kills, enslaves, or steals from a person without their consent, or that perpetrates force or fraud on them. (7)
There are escapable negative consequences for the above-defined ‘unethical’ behavior - it is possible to commit a crime and never be found out. (a po)
Some activities, despite falling within the mien of the above-defined ‘unethical’ behavior, have positive material or emotional consequences for whoever commits them (theft is profitable, revenge is satisfying, etc). (a po)
THEREFORE, if an action has positive consequences and an acceptable risk of negative consequences (as judged by the person performing them), it is logically correct to proceed with that action, EVEN THOUGH it falls within the commonly-understood definition of ‘unethical!’
Premises 8 and 9 are based on a posteriori knowledge, which means ‘I believe this is so based on my experience.’ If you can prove that there are no actions with inescapable negative consequences, or that there are never ever any positive consequences for what I called ‘unethical’ behaviors, or that there is something deal-breakingly wrong with what I call unethical behaviors, then the argument falls apart. Consider that an invitation.
I apologize. The worm in question is only important to the debate as an example, and it was pointless of me to ask you to produce it.
But, now that I am clean, do tell - what do the monks demand that makes them parasites? They don’t demand food, because it has to be a gift. They don’t demand an audience, because dealing with people who are not monks actually decreases their monkly virtue. How are the followers harmed, and how are the monks benefit?
I’m not going to get into issues of Buddhism itself, party because I simply don’t do theological discussions, but mostly because from what I can tell, most Westerners, including posters on this board, have learned all they know about Buddhism from watching old episodes of the David Carradine Kung Fu series.
But it does say a lot that the junta is willing to go after these monks so viciously. The average person in Buddhist Southeast Asia is taught that monks – even the short-term ones taking a break from their normal life, which is many if not most monks in Thailand – hold a special elevated, supernatural status. And the Burmese are even MORE superstitious than the Thais if that can be possible, due largely to substandard education, so for the junta to be willing to do this is very much a hardline statement.
The junta has basically inherited the traditional royal arrogance of the old Burmese kings. Those kings of old beat out even the Chinese emperors in attitudes of absolute omipotence and supernatural right and might. Such attitudes were a major contributor to all three of the Anglo-Burmese wars of the 19th century and reportedly just as prevalent in old Siam, back when the capital was the city of Ayutthaya. Some scholars speculate that when the Burmese sacked Ayutthaya in 1767, completely destroying the city and the centuries-old way of Siamese life, it shook the royal powers out of their arrogance, paving the way for successful interaction with the modern world. Plus reestablishing the capital at Bangkok at that time also helped, being closer to the Gulf of Siam (now the Gulf of Thailand), which also would not have been possible had they not been stomped by the Burmese. So Siam’s utter defeat at the hands of the Burmese was actually a blessing in disguise, but certainly no one at the time thought that way.
But I digress. I personally do not think the death of a monk is necessarily any more tragic than the death of another citizen. But considering what these monks stand for in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Burmese, it is a very, very powerful message.
Der Trihs, if you had actually admitted your atheism in high school, you might have had some interesting conversations, & found out how the religious people around you actually think, instead of making judgments based on your own phobic imagination.
The same empathy & impulses that your ethics derive from exist in those who have religious superstitions. Not everyone who goes to church or meditates will happily take up a knife & kill a random person because a priest tells him to. Religions really do instill ethics other than, “follow the leader.” Cult leaders like Jim Jones have to weed out a lot of people with healthy psychologies to end up with their core of sheep.
In any case, while I am not Theravada, & in fact strongly disagree with it, I have to point out that you’re talking about all religion as if it were belligerent theistic religion. Theravada is not belligerent & barely theistic. It’s an ethical philosophy that looks very different from the Christianity you’ve encountered in the past, & you’re reading “Theravada monk” as “Christian priest/Islamist mullah” & looking very ignorant.
And I could have collected some broken bones and a burned down house, instead.
No, they don’t. A major part of what religion does is divide people into “us” and “them”, and give people utter license to abuse, exploit or kill “them”. Another thing it does is teach people to favor obedience to the rules of whatever religion infests them, over any form of morality or compassion.
Religion is religion. A difference in theology makes little difference, because all theology is nonsense. And just because a religion is far away doesn’t make it nicer or more rational.
Ah, the old saw: “The only reason I don’t do evil is because I fear the consequences God promises, therefore anyone who doesn’t fear God’s consequences must perform evil in an unrestrained fashion.”
This says more about you than it does about the atheists, that the only reason you can see to refrain from evil would be fear of external consequences. To persons who have NOT had their moral sensibilities brainwashed out of them, this argument -and anyone who makes it- are as scary as hell, since they have demonstrated that the minute the arguer’s god refrains from forbidding an action, they utterly lack any other kind of moral restraint to prevent them from persecuting persons of other faiths, sexual orientations, hair colors - whichever thing God doesn’t like this week.
The conceptual flaw in this argument is that it assumes that atheists, like the arguer, lack a personal moral compass, conscience, sense of guilt, ect. In actuality, atheists have all of these things, to at least the same degree everyone else does. This may be hard to understand if your only moral guide is the rantings of your God and/or priest, but it is true nonetheless.
The logical flaw in your argument is the leap from 7 to 8. The precise fallacy is Excluded Middle: a person can dismiss the afterlife AND see inescapable negative consequences of heinous acts: they can recognize that they would feel bad or guilty as a result of their actions, even if there’s not some bearded sky-ghost looming over them with a Big Stick.
Now, it is important to note that there are some things that your particular religion will have defined as “immoral” that atheists consider a-ok. This is not because they lack a moral compass; merely that their morality differs in some minor details from the one prescibed by your religion. This might be because their moral compass is flawed, but it also might be because the arbitrary crap you’ve been fed by your religion is flawed instead. (The main difference being, thought goes into the atheist’s moral compass.)
I am a materialist under that definition (and an athiest). Also a utilitarian.
I would argue that the same holds true for religious people. Many gods are said to be forgiving. Certainly that’s not true of all faiths, but there are a good many for whom “you can do bad things, yet repent and be saved” is roughly a good understanding. On top of that, there’s unethical behaviour for the greater good; lying to save a life? The murder of one to prevent the murder of many others? Add on to this that “negative consequences” does not have to mean afterlife-based punishment.
Finally, this tends to rely on the religious person being sure of their beliefs. Many are not. That they might think “Well, I could be wrong” provides a potential escape.
This also tends to assume that an athiest has no moral compass of their own. I would say it’s pretty much the norm for athiests not to go around murdering, pillaging and the like. I would guess (I don’t have stats) that the average athiest is no more likely to commit such a crime than a religious person - thus I think it’s reasonable to say that an athiest may have the same level of “acceptable risk of negative consequences” as a religious person.
I believe I can prove that there are no actions with inescapable negative consequences. Not objectively, of course, since none of us really knows that. But I can prove it subjectively; we don’t know that there are such consequences for certain. Thus, to us, there is a possibility both that there are and that there aren’t. Why does it matter if it’s just a subjective problem? Because this whole argument is based on what people believe rather than what is. The objective existence of potential negative consequences doesn’t actually make a difference to what we’re prepared to do. It’s whether or not we believe in that potential that matters.
Der Trihs You are creating a hostile ‘us and them’ environment too. What are you doing to bridge the gap between ‘us and them’ despite screaming, “You’re all evil!”, at the top of your bandwidth?
If ethics are based on empathy you are failing, because you show time and again a distinct inability to empathize with the vast majority of human beings who happen to be religious.
I can think of one other reason that people might respect the actions of monks above that of other people.
The monks gain great stature by being compared with people who carp about the beliefs of others, while taking no stand that requires them to do anything other than make unsubstantiated allegations about the intelligence, sincerity, and motives of people who do risk life and limb to speak out against murder.
Before I go on, I’d like to say that most of the people I know are atheists - I have a lot more atheist friends than I do Christian ones, and my only Buddhist friend is the lady at Einstein Brothers. (I have plenty of Buddhist enemies, though, but that’s because I’m such a sectarian asshole.) So I don’t operate under the assumption that all atheists are simply waiting for everyone’s back to turn before they start stealing and raping.
Well, I’d understand if you think I did. But at the very least, I don’t want people to think that, and I’m not arguing from that position. Most people don’t make these kinds of inquiries into their actions and the source of their actions, and thus they act o a more basic level.
Oh, people of all kinds have senses of guilt, moral compasses, and the like. But without an afterlife, a serious philosophical examination of them can only come to the conclusion that they are on the same level as, say, a fear of flying.
Seeing as Skinner discovered that it’s possible to instill phobias and moral codes - and anti-moral codes, which is not a term that he used but I hope you get my drift when I use it - in people not only against their reason but against their very wills, is there any basis for the belief that a consience is a real failsafe or a source of ‘correct action?’
So, I give you a challenge. Imagine that you are a guest in my home. (not the home I live in now, because it’s so messy that I wouldn’t show it to guests.) I go to the bathroom, and I leave my computer unattended, internet up and logged into all the wrong places. A perfect opportunity to write yourself an electronic cheque from my personal account! So why don’t you do it?
If it’s because you’d be found out, or because I’ll come back too quickly, well, that’s just risk allocation. Does that mean that you would do it if the risk were less, compared to the reward?
If it’s because it’s ‘wrong’ to steal, well, what does that mean? If you’re taking a class of actions, categorizing them as ‘wrong,’ and avoiding them, isn’t that just another religion? How is that different, on a materialist level, from, say, keeping kosher? Surely nobody’s holding up fish-only-on-friday as a paragon of morality.
If it’s because it’s against your moral compass, or it’ll make you feel guilty, well, haven’t you read The Behavior of Organisms? The moral compass is subtly different for everybody, and not only that but it changes over time and can be explicitly changed by outside intervention. Does that imply that if you didn’t feel guilty, you’d do it? Some people have larger guilt complexes then the average, and feel guilty, for example, asking for refunds when they get the wrong order at restaurants. Whose guilt complex is the one that’s accurate?
If it’s because it’s simply abstractly wrong, then isn’t that just another religion? How do you go, logically, from that which is empirically observable to the idea that a given action is morally wrong? How is that even conceptually possible?
Also, I can’t help but feel you’re being somewhat rude to me. I know that that’s inevitable when we’re both attacking what is essentially the core foundation of the other person’s sense of self and self-worth, but I think comments like “To persons who have NOT had their moral sensibilities brainwashed out of them,” “This may be hard to understand if your only moral guide is the rantings of your God and/or priest, but it is true nonetheless,” and especially “but it also might be because the arbitrary crap you’ve been fed by your religion is flawed instead. (The main difference being, thought goes into the atheist’s moral compass.)” are all a wee-bit uncalled for. If I’ve been rude to you, or to comments that weren’t explicitly addressed to you but are yours in spirit, I sincerely apologize. The temptation to yell at people who disagree with me is ever-present (and effervescent), but I try to rise above it, if only because it’s unhealthy and makes me more likely to do it in the future. That’s risk-allocation ethics right there, but it keeps me from doing it.
And here’s one from Threshold, who is spelling his name correctly even though I feel for some reason that the correct spelling should be Thresh-hold or Threshhold.
But if the belief is what matters there, isn’t that still just risk-allocation? The question remains - where can a materialist get ethics if not from risk-allocation and behavioral psychology? Both of them have wiggle-room for the same actions depending on whether or not the risk is too great or whether it’ll make one feel guilty.
Even though I am not a Buddhist, this is why I enjoy being around Buddhists so much. They keep their mouths shut about religion, at least as far as trying to persuade others. Many of my own “religious” beliefs are not far off those of Der Tris, but I don’t annoy others with them. Back stateside, all sorts of fools would go out of their way to tell me all about God in any number of forms, they couldn’t just let me mind my own business. Here, no one proselytizes to me, nor I to them, and everyone’s happy.
If I’m included in that subheader, then . . . sniff that’s the nicest thing anyone’s said about me. I will be in Bangkok for New Year’s, and I WILL treat you to dinner at Zanotti’s if you want.
(Zanotti’s is on the corner of Saladaeng 1 and Yommarat, in the Saladaeng district. Really good, classy Italian restaurant. There are always Mom Chaos and the like there.)
