4 ms·

I would consider the large religions to be exceptions because it is central to how most people are raised. Thus they are not something you really have much cont

I would consider the large religions to be exceptions because it is central to how most people are raised. Thus they are not something you really have much control over. You were taught from a very young age that things are in a certain way, we cannot blame a person for their upbringing. We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age.

psychoslave 8y ago
>we cannot blame a person for their upbringing. >We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age. What is the difference? Mature age doesn't mean society put a person in position of taking "reasonable decision", let alone engaging in ethical moves. It's not like human have a known general evolution of increased virtuousness over time. If blaming is believed an ethical efficient way to help others fixing behaviors that are judged even more harmful, then surely it should be used. Thus said, one should first look for psychological studies out there and see if they conclude that blaming is considered and efficient way to obtain a net positive outcome on this regard rather than generating more social trauma and drama.
- skummetmaelk 8y ago
  Blaming may or may not be efficient in changing behaviour. That does not matter though. We cannot blame a person for being brought up in a certain way, but that does not mean we should give them carte blanche to control anything of importance if their views are so heinous to our sensibilities. If you were brought up to believe killing people is ok. I will not blame you for believing that, but I will also not let you watch my children alone. When it comes to the major religions, the views expressed by their followers are rarely so offensive to us that we wish to limit their practitioners from keeping important posts in society(1). That is the entire point of society accepting the religions. They are declared sacred, acceptable, and free from discrimination. Being a holocaust denier or similar should not offer you the same protection. (1): Whether this is a good thing or not is up for debate, but it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. The fact is that freedom of, and acceptance of, religion is central to western society.
HillaryBriss 8y ago
Does that mean a person who converted to one of the well-known traditional religions as an adult ought to be excluded?

psychoslave 8y ago

>we cannot blame a person for their upbringing. >We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age. What is the difference? Mature age doesn't mean society put a person in position of taking "reasonable decision", let alone engaging in ethical moves. It's not like human have a known general evolution of increased virtuousness over time. If blaming is believed an ethical efficient way to help others fixing behaviors that are judged even more harmful, then surely it should be used. Thus said, one should first look for psychological studies out there and see if they conclude that blaming is considered and efficient way to obtain a net positive outcome on this regard rather than generating more social trauma and drama.

skummetmaelk 8y ago
Blaming may or may not be efficient in changing behaviour. That does not matter though. We cannot blame a person for being brought up in a certain way, but that does not mean we should give them carte blanche to control anything of importance if their views are so heinous to our sensibilities. If you were brought up to believe killing people is ok. I will not blame you for believing that, but I will also not let you watch my children alone. When it comes to the major religions, the views expressed by their followers are rarely so offensive to us that we wish to limit their practitioners from keeping important posts in society(1). That is the entire point of society accepting the religions. They are declared sacred, acceptable, and free from discrimination. Being a holocaust denier or similar should not offer you the same protection. (1): Whether this is a good thing or not is up for debate, but it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. The fact is that freedom of, and acceptance of, religion is central to western society.

HillaryBriss 8y ago

Does that mean a person who converted to one of the well-known traditional religions as an adult ought to be excluded?