Bree

So, if my culture says it's okay to kill all my female children because they're useless to my familyi, then that's my right, because it's permissible within my culture?

E_muse

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. It's not permissible within our cultures - so what point are you trying to make? I said that your rights as an individual are linked to what is permissible within your culture - I didn't say that your values are necessarily dictated by your culture.

People speak of 'rights' as though they are something which exist within an individual, distinct from cultural influences and what is permissible with a culture of society.

For example, I might not want to kill anyone in my family, but if I do and my society permits it, it also exists as my legal right. If my society doesn't permit it then it is not my right, it's simply my desire.

I'm not sure whether such practices still exist, but within some extreme forms of Hinduism, it was a common practice for wives to be burned alive on the funeral pyre of their late husband or be buried alive. It was a British decision to end this practice. More information can be found <a href="http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0847330.html" target="_blank"> HERE</a>.

I state this to show that values can be ethnocentric and that appeals to 'absolutes' regarding humanity can simply be an appeal to a Western ethic, either within the West, or in terms of its past influence on other cultures.

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

three4jump

I hate to interrupt anyone's debate, but I wanted to add my own two cents worth as to why America needs religion.

Religion is quite useful in teaching hypocrisy. Through the constant belaboring of morality in religious sermons, Americans become desensitized to what might be seen as a jarring contrast in everyday behavior. You go to church and pretend to be a moral person, and then you go home and squeal on your brother for hitting you after you egged him on for fifteen minutes to incite the incident.

One of my favorite scenes from the Sopranos is when Anthony Jr. gets caught smoking pot in the garage during the party after his confirmation, which I assume is some sort of Catholic coming-of-age, declaration-of-faith ritual. His Mom says, "What kind of monster gets high at his own confirmation?" After Anthony Jr. gets a smack on the back of the head, she ushers him in the house, saying, "Get back in there and be a good Catholic for fifteen fucking minutes." Besides being hilarious, it's a good illustration of how to use religion for it's central intended purpose. Religion provides you with the outward appearance of morality in order to baffle outsiders long enough for you to get away with murder.

Those of us who weren't raised with religion are playing the game with a handicap. When we go to work at companies who have plaques on their walls saying stuff like, "Providing a quality product to our customer is our number one priority," we might be niave enough to believe they mean it. Someone with the proper religious training would recognize that this is merely a facade, and if the guy down the line didn't adequately tighten a bolt in the steering linkage you should obviously pretend you didn't see it since you won't suffer any consequences, you'll save yourself the work of stopping the line, and you'll save him the embarrassment. That "Quality" plaque is just for show, everyone knows.

Since appearances count so much more than intent or belief in America, it could be argued that religion is just what we need to teach us the proper hypocrisy. Rationalism is for losers who delude themselves that there's a chance in hell that America will ever be a fair and honest society.

sbaii

[QUOTE]Originally posted by E_muse:
[QB]

You're essentially arguing that anything which you choose to want to do should also exist as a legal right.
-------------------------------------------------
No, that is not what Bree said. Bree was talking specifically about marriage and divorce. You can't extrapolate that to "anything goes." One of my main criticisms of many fundamentalist ministers is that they make enormous leaps of illogic usually at the pulpit where no one can debate them.
I have been enjoying your debate with Bill. Your argument that religionists were the first to write down certain ethical precepts does not require people to believe religions today. First of all,throughout history those religions that have survived for eons have done so my eliminating dissent. So who can really say with authority who first said the golden rule? Most Xian churches preach a lot more than the golden rule. They preach fear and hatred and a lot of contradictory stuff from the Bible. They depend
on people's fears, of death, of others who are different.
Bill's argument of enlightened self-interest is very compelling, emphasis on "enlightened".You say that you do the good things that you do because it makes you feel good. That's self-interest.You have been brought up to get good feelings from doing the kind of work you do. Others are not so lucky. They are brought up to believe that the world operates by the law of the jungle. I was brought up catholic and I deeply enjoy helping others. But I don't believe that a god is going to reward me after I die. I believe in the ability of people to learn and I distrust any institution that wants to keep people ignorant and dependent.
The ultimate argument religionists use against nonbelievers is that their morality is better because it comes from a higher power. Then you get into the argument of whether that higher power exists which boils down to faith and one's need to live forever against the laws of nature as we know them.
Your argument that atheism has had its turn in the guise of communism is hardly fair. Religion has been trying to get people to be "moral" for eons and usually for the wrong reasons. It's time for the American people to educate themselves and learn to think and get out from under the fundamentalism that enslaves their minds. I understand that more than half of Britons declare themselves nonreligious. If that is true, it doesn't surprise me since I believe Europeans are better educated than Americans in general. And we are getting worse as our so-called elected officials tear down our public school system.

Tusitala

Christianity, Islam, or for that matter any religion, do not hold the mortgages on morality.

If I may offer a quote from Peter the Monk (sometimes known as Peter the Hermit, a French monk of great eloquence who lived 1050 - 1115 AD)

Sound familiar? Several hundred years later (and several wars later) and we're still here.

Humanity rules, not religion.

E_muse

I think you will find that it was Voltaire321 who made the original comment about marriage. I did expand upon this but it was Bree who then made the comment about murdering the females in one's own family.

In the original arguement, Voltaire made the statement that if they chose not to remain legally bound to someone then this is their right.

I was merely pointing out that we're not free to choose whatever we want and that each situation is 'case sensitive' if you like. Rights in society don't simply boil down to personal choice and therefore the legal 'right' to do something cannot be defended upon that basis - but often they are!

Your statement that 'anything goes' isn't permissible only underlines that personal choice is not an absolute in our societies.

To put my comment into context, I think I stated this as an expression of popular opinion and one of the major contributing factors to postmodernism.

Many people making a casual observation based upon finite experiences, seeing religion and communism side by side, committing injustices against humanity, would simply reach the conclusions I have suggested.

Postmodernism is a very real cultural phenomenon.

I would be interested to hear what you feel should be the basis for morality.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

ELECTROGOD

Well...if these things never happened before in human history then you might have a point. But...
The aspect of Judaeo-Christianity that we see as most damaging is the lack of encouragement to think for yourself. This is not encouraged because when you do start thinking then often you come to conclusions that won't benefit their control over you.
All we really ask is that you look into and think about those issues that catch your attention more than just taking what some obivously biased person (with something to gain) has to say about it.
You seem to have stopped posting (fromtheright), but after reading all of these replies it would be great if you could post a follow up of your thoughts.

Bill Snedden

Once again, my apologies for a rather lengthy delay...

The discussion has become rather lengthy, and fraught with "side issues". I'm therefore going to restrict my response to the objections raised to my formalized argument.

Okay, one point of agreement. A foundation upon which a discussion can be made.

Possibly? Even once homogeneous societies (cf. Japan) are experiencing "culture shock" as they are exposed to various differing, sometimes even diametrically opposed, cultures via immigration & trade. The ineluctable trend is toward diversity.

In a sense, however, I can see that you are correct to question this. It does seem to me also inevitable that in the far future, most cultural differences will disappear, out of necessity.

Not necessarily. The "unitary value" of which I am speaking has already found expression in almost all cultures, religions, & philosophies.

Well, human thought (the ability to reason) transcends all cultures as it is part of human nature. Culture is an expression of different modes of thought, different ideas and values that have adopted by different peoples at different places and times.

However, what I'm talking about is a value that has already found expression in almost every human culture. Something that is intrinsic to humanity and human needs, rather than an abstract notion that can be the product of culture.

Every society needs rules and laws, enforced by society or the state. A common value does not guarantee universal conformity any more than the fear of hell guarantees universal sinlessness.

True authority can only derive from the consent of the governed. There are no "uebermenschen".

But this is really stepping outside of the argument. At base, the question is whether a religious foundation or a human foundation serves the needs of humanity best. The questions of authority and enforcement must necessarily arise in either, so in terms of deciding between them, they are moot.

Not at all. The so-called "golden rule" appears in almost every major philosophy of the world, both theistic and non-theistic, dating back to thousands of years before the birth of Jesus. It's no more a religious or biblical principle than "don't kill".

This is true, however most religions posit a transcendental (to human nature) source of value. This is anathema to human society. As the "transcendental value" appears to be inextricably tied to the particular culture that birthed it, it cannot serve as the unitary value that is required to serve humanity's future.

You'll find the answer in your own words: "...humans are diverse and yet saying that humans have common values..."

Human cultures are diverse, human traditions are diverse, human beliefs are diverse, but humanity qua humanity is not diverse at all. Despite all our outward diversity, we do still have something in common: we are all human, and in this commonality is immense strength, if only we would look to it.

As I've already noted, the "golden rule" is not a religious principle.

This is an excellent question. I often wonder myself why Christians seem so unable to practice what is arguably the most profound of Jesus' teachings.

My personal opinion is that it lies in the inherent contradictions and incoherencies of Christianity as a worldview. I want to stress that I am not claiming that Christians are incoherent or self-contradictory, but rather that Christianity itself has no real coherence and is fraught with contradiction.

Individual Christians resolve these contradictions and incoherencies individually (or in groups like denominations or sects), but all this does is divide them. Thus, not even they can agree on what it means to practice the golden rule. This is so because the divisions created are not based on interpretations of the intrinsic value, but rather of other, "transcendental", values.

Anyway, that's off the top of my head.

At any rate, ethics is not some sort of magic bullet that, once found and agreed upon, instantly stops all contrary behavior. Even rational people can disagree upon where their best interest lies (contra Rand). My argument is that a humanistic foundation for ethics is better than a religious one because the foundation is intrinsic to humanity and can thus be discussed, debated, and judged rationally and therefore transcendent to culture.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>