5 ms·

Membership in a community is one benefit that churches/religions provide. Another is a worldview that values selflessness, altruism, and honesty. I don't think

Membership in a community is one benefit that churches/religions provide. Another is a worldview that values selflessness, altruism, and honesty. I don't think those things can exist apart from religion (at a cultural level, anyway), because as soon as you decide morality is relative then everyone is free to choose the morality that is most convenient for them/their tribe. I think this explains much of our political divide and the "post-Truth" era generally, and we're only a decade or two into mainstream moral relativism. This is, of course, speculation so take it for what it's worth.

jmcqk6 7y ago
> because as soon as you decide morality is relative then everyone is free to choose the morality that is most convenient for them/their tribe. I don't think I'm a moral relativist, but this is a non-sequitur. It's possible for morality to be relative, but still have guiding principals. >we're only a decade or two into mainstream moral relativism. No, people have always found a way to justify what want to be right regardless of the underlying ideology. We've just become more explicit about it in some cases. People's beliefs about what is right tend to be very convenient for them regardless of what they claim their beliefs to be. I think it's the equivalent of a 'code smell' if you find yourself going through life without being challenged about what you think is right and wrong. I think it usually means you have come up with a convenient set of rules that allows you to ignore nuance and details so that you don't have to constantly struggle with what's good and bad. Of course, I'm speculating too.
- wellpast 7y ago
  > No, people have always found a way to justify what want to be right regardless of the underlying ideology. We've just become more explicit about it in some cases. People's beliefs about what is right tend to be very convenient for them regardless of what they claim their beliefs to be. This is probably true in cases. But I suspect that widespread cultural alignment to a general perspective/worldview must have an overall mass effect.
- weberc2 7y ago
  > I don't think I'm a moral relativist, but this is a non-sequitur. It's possible for morality to be relative, but still have guiding principals. At an individual level, I agree. But I stipulated "at a cultural level", by which I mean something like "if the culture is morally relativistic, I don't think you'll see a critical mass of principled individuals that would prop up a principled culture". I don't think moral relativism is compatible with a principled culture, at least not given the parameters of human psychology. > No, people have always found a way to justify what want to be right regardless of the underlying ideology. To be clear, I didn't claim moral absolutism generally or religion in particular is a panacea against this sort of self-dishonesty, but I think you see less of it and instances are less pronounced if only because that individual will lose credibility with his peers. In a morally relativistic culture, the offender only needs to argue "that's your morality, not mine" or "that's your truth, not mine", which is roughly what we see today. > We've just become more explicit about it in some cases. People's beliefs about what is right tend to be very convenient for them regardless of what they claim their beliefs to be. I think there's always a temptation to convince oneself that what they want is moral, but I think that temptation is inhibited because he knows his community won't let him get away with it (his reputation would be damaged if he advocated for a few overtly immoral things or many subtly immoral things, consistently). Further, with religions in particular, there is often a text that lays out the morality and there is only so much word lawyering someone can do without overtly running afoul of it. It further constrains the impulse. And with religions like Christianity in particular, a central activity is reflecting on one's selfishness and working against it (the concept of "dying to oneself"). Like I said before, it's not a panacea (there are many religious people and indeed Christians who subvert it), but I think it is a bulwark that we tear down at our own peril.
  - jmcqk6 7y ago
    You only need to look at the literal thousands of different versions of Christianity to see this. Is it wrong to be gay as a christian? You're going to find hundreds of different christian opinions on this, with their own scripture to back it up. Are you saved by words or actions? Again, you're going to find many many different answers, all with their own scripture and reasoning. You claim that christianity is about reflecting on one's selfishness and working against it, but can you say that about the prosperity gospel? Trump is about as self-centered as a person can get, but he's held up as a saint by millions of christians in this country. But perhaps you just mean within a single church community, and not christianity at large? I was a PK, though, so I know how church politics can go and the infighting and selfishness that can be exhibited within the community. Basically the most we can hope for when it comes to morality is some general agreement about right and wrong, and that agreement is always shifting. There has never been a community or religion in the history of the world that hasn't exhibited this.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> don't think those things can exist apart from religion (at a cultural level, anyway), because as soon as you decide morality is relative then everyone is free to choose the morality that is most convenient for them/their tribe. You've confused absence of moral relativism with religion; the former does not require the latter, and most non-religious people are not moral relativists, at least in the sense of the strong meta-ethical relativism which would justify the claim above.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  Actually, it's way funnier than that, because most religions are strongly in favour of moral relativism and subjectivism. When the standard for what is moral is the opinion of some guy, that is clearly just a subjective opinion, and when different cultures refer to different guys for the opinion, that is clearly relative. Just adding the further nonsense claim that your guy also created the universe, or something to that effect, seems to be an effective rhetorical device, but doesn't change that it's just a guy's opinion, not an objective fact.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    I’m not following, sorry.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      Anything I can help you with?
- weberc2 7y ago
  I think the former may require the latter. I’m not sure how an atheistic (in the literal sense) population could resist the forces of selfishness and tribalism over generations (again, this isn’t to say that religious people are unwavering, but I think religion does function as an anchor that keeps a population’s mores from drifting too far). As for whether most non religious people are moral relativists, perhaps they aren’t individually because they’ve settled on a morality that is palatable to them, but in aggregate I posit their morality (moralities?) drift more readily than religious persons. And as a reminder, this is all speculation and I completely understand that you may not agree (I may not agree by the end of this thread!).
sjy 7y ago
Why can't selflessness, altruism and honesty prevail under the influence of secular government? I'm not saying our current governments have achieved this, but we also see a great deal of selfishness and dishonesty in religious groups. We do have secular incentives that encourage altruism (eg. charitable deductions and state honours for people who contribute greatly to the community) and legal (conviction) and social (expulsion from public office) punishments for dishonesty in some cases. Isn't it conceivable that if these secular tools were used more effectively, we could achieve a non-religious society that values selflessness, altruism and honesty?
- weberc2 7y ago
  My comment was about culture, not government, so I’m not sure how to address your question.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> Another is a worldview that values selflessness, altruism, and honesty. Like, selflessly forcing women to stay pregnant, altruistically persecuting homosexuals, and honestly claiming that some made-up nonsense is the ultimate truth? Yeah, obviously, all of those wonderful values would be dead, weren't it for the religions of the world fighting to preserve them against the bad "relative" morality of humanists. You can't be serious, can you?
- weberc2 7y ago
  Sorry guy, I’m not here for a flame war. Best regards.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    Your inflammatory comments suggest something different, unfortunately.
satellitec4t 7y ago
> Another is a worldview that values selflessness, altruism, and honesty. I don't think those things can exist apart from religion Religion doesn't have a monopoly on those ideals. They are not even solely human ideals. Many mammals display them in certain scenarios. > (at a cultural level, anyway). Many of the least religious countries are the best places to live, and the most religious, the worst. I went to Norway (the least religious country in western Europe), and they often don't check tickets on the train or at the entrances of places. When you ask someone why not, because people could lie, you get an answer like.. "because one wouldn't do that" (ie cheat the system). I got so used to it that I would lose my train tickets in my bag because I didn't need them. The only place I needed them was getting off the train at the airport because there was a machine that checked it. > because as soon as you decide morality is relative then everyone is free to choose the morality that is most convenient for them/their tribe. Religions do this. There are many sects with different rules. People pick and choose what rules to obey all the time. Not being religious doesn't make one a moral relativist. Ethics and morality can be reasoned about. > I think this explains much of our political divide and the "post-Truth" era generally The post-truth era in the West is clearly a product of the religious right: https://youtu.be/xnhJWusyj4I https://youtu.be/xnhJWusyj4I

jmcqk6 7y ago

> because as soon as you decide morality is relative then everyone is free to choose the morality that is most convenient for them/their tribe. I don't think I'm a moral relativist, but this is a non-sequitur. It's possible for morality to be relative, but still have guiding principals. >we're only a decade or two into mainstream moral relativism. No, people have always found a way to justify what want to be right regardless of the underlying ideology. We've just become more explicit about it in some cases. People's beliefs about what is right tend to be very convenient for them regardless of what they claim their beliefs to be. I think it's the equivalent of a 'code smell' if you find yourself going through life without being challenged about what you think is right and wrong. I think it usually means you have come up with a convenient set of rules that allows you to ignore nuance and details so that you don't have to constantly struggle with what's good and bad. Of course, I'm speculating too.

wellpast 7y ago
> No, people have always found a way to justify what want to be right regardless of the underlying ideology. We've just become more explicit about it in some cases. People's beliefs about what is right tend to be very convenient for them regardless of what they claim their beliefs to be. This is probably true in cases. But I suspect that widespread cultural alignment to a general perspective/worldview must have an overall mass effect.
weberc2 7y ago
> I don't think I'm a moral relativist, but this is a non-sequitur. It's possible for morality to be relative, but still have guiding principals. At an individual level, I agree. But I stipulated "at a cultural level", by which I mean something like "if the culture is morally relativistic, I don't think you'll see a critical mass of principled individuals that would prop up a principled culture". I don't think moral relativism is compatible with a principled culture, at least not given the parameters of human psychology. > No, people have always found a way to justify what want to be right regardless of the underlying ideology. To be clear, I didn't claim moral absolutism generally or religion in particular is a panacea against this sort of self-dishonesty, but I think you see less of it and instances are less pronounced if only because that individual will lose credibility with his peers. In a morally relativistic culture, the offender only needs to argue "that's your morality, not mine" or "that's your truth, not mine", which is roughly what we see today. > We've just become more explicit about it in some cases. People's beliefs about what is right tend to be very convenient for them regardless of what they claim their beliefs to be. I think there's always a temptation to convince oneself that what they want is moral, but I think that temptation is inhibited because he knows his community won't let him get away with it (his reputation would be damaged if he advocated for a few overtly immoral things or many subtly immoral things, consistently). Further, with religions in particular, there is often a text that lays out the morality and there is only so much word lawyering someone can do without overtly running afoul of it. It further constrains the impulse. And with religions like Christianity in particular, a central activity is reflecting on one's selfishness and working against it (the concept of "dying to oneself"). Like I said before, it's not a panacea (there are many religious people and indeed Christians who subvert it), but I think it is a bulwark that we tear down at our own peril.
- jmcqk6 7y ago
  You only need to look at the literal thousands of different versions of Christianity to see this. Is it wrong to be gay as a christian? You're going to find hundreds of different christian opinions on this, with their own scripture to back it up. Are you saved by words or actions? Again, you're going to find many many different answers, all with their own scripture and reasoning. You claim that christianity is about reflecting on one's selfishness and working against it, but can you say that about the prosperity gospel? Trump is about as self-centered as a person can get, but he's held up as a saint by millions of christians in this country. But perhaps you just mean within a single church community, and not christianity at large? I was a PK, though, so I know how church politics can go and the infighting and selfishness that can be exhibited within the community. Basically the most we can hope for when it comes to morality is some general agreement about right and wrong, and that agreement is always shifting. There has never been a community or religion in the history of the world that hasn't exhibited this.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> don't think those things can exist apart from religion (at a cultural level, anyway), because as soon as you decide morality is relative then everyone is free to choose the morality that is most convenient for them/their tribe. You've confused absence of moral relativism with religion; the former does not require the latter, and most non-religious people are not moral relativists, at least in the sense of the strong meta-ethical relativism which would justify the claim above.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
Actually, it's way funnier than that, because most religions are strongly in favour of moral relativism and subjectivism. When the standard for what is moral is the opinion of some guy, that is clearly just a subjective opinion, and when different cultures refer to different guys for the opinion, that is clearly relative. Just adding the further nonsense claim that your guy also created the universe, or something to that effect, seems to be an effective rhetorical device, but doesn't change that it's just a guy's opinion, not an objective fact.
- weberc2 7y ago
  I’m not following, sorry.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    Anything I can help you with?
weberc2 7y ago
I think the former may require the latter. I’m not sure how an atheistic (in the literal sense) population could resist the forces of selfishness and tribalism over generations (again, this isn’t to say that religious people are unwavering, but I think religion does function as an anchor that keeps a population’s mores from drifting too far). As for whether most non religious people are moral relativists, perhaps they aren’t individually because they’ve settled on a morality that is palatable to them, but in aggregate I posit their morality (moralities?) drift more readily than religious persons. And as a reminder, this is all speculation and I completely understand that you may not agree (I may not agree by the end of this thread!).

sjy 7y ago

Why can't selflessness, altruism and honesty prevail under the influence of secular government? I'm not saying our current governments have achieved this, but we also see a great deal of selfishness and dishonesty in religious groups. We do have secular incentives that encourage altruism (eg. charitable deductions and state honours for people who contribute greatly to the community) and legal (conviction) and social (expulsion from public office) punishments for dishonesty in some cases. Isn't it conceivable that if these secular tools were used more effectively, we could achieve a non-religious society that values selflessness, altruism and honesty?

weberc2 7y ago
My comment was about culture, not government, so I’m not sure how to address your question.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

> Another is a worldview that values selflessness, altruism, and honesty. Like, selflessly forcing women to stay pregnant, altruistically persecuting homosexuals, and honestly claiming that some made-up nonsense is the ultimate truth? Yeah, obviously, all of those wonderful values would be dead, weren't it for the religions of the world fighting to preserve them against the bad "relative" morality of humanists. You can't be serious, can you?

weberc2 7y ago
Sorry guy, I’m not here for a flame war. Best regards.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  Your inflammatory comments suggest something different, unfortunately.

satellitec4t 7y ago

> Another is a worldview that values selflessness, altruism, and honesty. I don't think those things can exist apart from religion Religion doesn't have a monopoly on those ideals. They are not even solely human ideals. Many mammals display them in certain scenarios. > (at a cultural level, anyway). Many of the least religious countries are the best places to live, and the most religious, the worst. I went to Norway (the least religious country in western Europe), and they often don't check tickets on the train or at the entrances of places. When you ask someone why not, because people could lie, you get an answer like.. "because one wouldn't do that" (ie cheat the system). I got so used to it that I would lose my train tickets in my bag because I didn't need them. The only place I needed them was getting off the train at the airport because there was a machine that checked it. > because as soon as you decide morality is relative then everyone is free to choose the morality that is most convenient for them/their tribe. Religions do this. There are many sects with different rules. People pick and choose what rules to obey all the time. Not being religious doesn't make one a moral relativist. Ethics and morality can be reasoned about. > I think this explains much of our political divide and the "post-Truth" era generally The post-truth era in the West is clearly a product of the religious right: https://youtu.be/xnhJWusyj4I https://youtu.be/xnhJWusyj4I