Bree

Many Christians I know feel it is their duty to not only control the actions of others, but to control their thoughts as well. This is obvious not only by their actions but by their Scriptures (the "if you look at a woman in lust, you have already committed adultery in your heart" line comes to mind).

I was having a discussion with a few atheist friends of mine regarding the control of thoughts and words. It is their belief that we should, as moral human beings (again, no theism involved), place limits on what people can think and speak and write because "thoughts and words give way to actions." This is their argument: the KKK is an example of free speech - they can say whatever they want and print whatever they want because of the First Amendment; however, it is when their words give way to actions that they actually do harm to others. They believe that if you place limitations on this kind of behaviour (outlaw KKK meetings, written material, gatherings, et cetera) then you will cut down on the number of actions that result from this way of thinking and end up making the world better for everyone involved.

What is your opinion? I know it's not a plausible solution to the world's problems, but it's a definately interesting idea, albeit a very naive one.

IvanK

Who decides what and whose thoughts and words are controlled? How does a society go about controlling people's thoughts and words? And how does attempting to control thoughts and words make the world a better place exactly?

A far more practical solution it seems to me is to concentrate on behaviors that are harmful to others rather than thoughts or words that might lead to harmful behaviors; to counter "bad" or "harmful" thoughts and words by overwhelming them with more thoughts and words that are not "bad" or "harmful;" and to let people who have "bad" or "harmful" thoughts or words think and say them so you will know exactly who they are and what they believe.

ecco

Exactly what dictators have done since the beginning of time. Whose morality would be imposed? That of the Taliban? That of Jerry Falwell? Yours? Mine?

Bree

That was exactly my argument.

Perhaps the question should be this: do you think that the control and limitation of thoughts and words would lead to a decline in negative action?

bonduca

Did pedophilia decline in Victorian England? Or date rape in 1950's America?

Don't think of a polar bear.

Stop it!

Seriously, hiding from one's thoughts only leads to denial, and doesn't appear to control behavior.

And, as you so perceptively asked...who decides what will be controlled? According to Orwell, the best way to control a thought was to take away the words used to express it.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

Euromutt

I think that would be doubleplusgood, Bonduca.
"Four legs good!..."

David Gould

I think that making certain things impossible to think would be a good thing. Conscious decisions to act in certain ways would therefore become impossible.

As to which morality should be imposed, my own is obviously the best one. If I did not think that I would not follow it, would I?

What is the fundamental difference between thought and action, after all?

I guess the decision to act is the crucial point. Maybe that should be where the censorship should be - you are permitted to imagine breaking my moral code but you are not given the necessary tools to ever make the decision to act on that imaginary construct.

copernicus

That is the Orwellian argument. The fact is that the attempt to control or limit freedom is itself a negative action. It would rapidly lead to a decrease in positive actions, since social progress would be stifled.

Bree, I only have one quibble with a premise in your thread. It isn't just fundamentalists who have this attitude about reducing undesirable behavior. Lots of ordinary people have controlling, aggressive personalities, even atheists. There are plenty of fundamentalists who aren't aggressive, domineering types. What makes this a religious discussion?

Bree

I know it's not just fundamentalists holding this attitude - that's why I made the distinction when first writing the post. The people I am referring to do not have "controlling, agressive personalities" - I don't believe that people who believe that thoughts = actions have this kind of personality. I was merely posing a question and asking for responses.

If you don't think this has anything to do with religion (it really can go either way, religious or not) I can move it to make you feel better.

Amos

It is always wrong to try and control someone's actions, even the actions of your own children because sooner or later they too must be set free.

Man as solitary individual is a non social animal which makes humans social animals with a herd mentality. This must be true for a pair of opposites to make the other known. This means that man is heart is an ethical relativist which now means humans are not and that social norms must be instilled in humans during early childhood when they are most likely attached to their soul nature. From there they will wander and stray to some extent but return there to find peace when needed.