4 ms·

You'll have a broken moral system imposed on you either way then, if not by a church than by the shifting values of politics and society. You'll never derive an

by umvi 6y ago

You'll have a broken moral system imposed on you either way then, if not by a church than by the shifting values of politics and society. You'll never derive an absolute moral code by yourself, you are forced to accept the changing values of society or risk being ostracized. Most people just allow their morals to shift with society rather than dig in their heels or try to develop an absolute moral code.

tenacious_tuna 6y ago
> You'll have a broken moral system imposed on you either way I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how moral systems work, one that is perpetuated by the church. In Christianity, there is a specific "source" of morality, one that's (supposedly) infallible and unquestionable. This leads to problems when the infallible-unquestionable source of morality endorses things like slavery [1]: if it's unquestionable and infallible, how can your moral system be adapted to address this shortcoming? (This is usually handwaved away by theists by saying something like "oh that's the old covenant", or "that was a different god", which uses strange internal doctrinal shenanigans to somehow justify this supreme perfect being's obvious moral shortcommings, and looks to everyone outside the religion like someone just playing the cup game.) Outside of religion, there is no single "source" of morality. There's a codified system of laws that our societies adhere to, certainly, but there's plenty of examples of how the laws do not codify morality (e.g. I am not required to be even a minimally-decent Samaritan to anyone I encounter on the street). Morality instead is something that an individual has to build for themselves, as a framework for decisionmaking in the wider world: how do you choose between your available actions? what are your guiding principals? Some decide that, for various reasons, they cannot support industrial animal agriculture, and turn vegan. Some decide they fundamentally disagree with the structure of our police forces. Some turn pacifist--but all come to these conclusions through their reasoning. They absolutely can (and do) borrow reasoning from other sources, but it's impossible for it to be 'imposed' on them because there is no 'higher power' that has the absolute moral right. This is something that's frustrated me when trying to engage with religious people on other moral issues; a few months ago I was talking to my mom about the concept of wealth redistribution, as to me it seemed incredibly immoral that people like Jeff Bezos can have an insane amount of wealth while we still have children in our schools who can't afford lunch or library books or are even homeless. My mother (Christian) couldn't get around the idea that she had no right to impose her perceived morality on another: that it would be wrong to support laws requiring the redistribution of wealth. She had similar issues with LGBT rights: she could see the harm caused to LGBT people, and did not want to participate in that harm, but struggled to support them because she felt like codifying moral support for something, which she didn't have the power to do. This removal of one's own ability to develop and test morals is part of what disturbs me greatly about the church. It makes it very difficult to demonstrate when people make mistakes, how they have harmed other people, and how they might go about avoiding that in the future. [1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&versi...
- umvi 6y ago
  > My mother (Christian) couldn't get around the idea that she had no right to impose her perceived morality on another I mean... you probably can't get around that idea either. Or do you believe that any and all of your rights can and should be taken away if a majority of the people agree you shouldn't have those rights anymore (even if the majority are religious nutjobs who decide you should not have a right to consume alcohol because it's immoral)?
  - tenacious_tuna 6y ago
    > even if the majority are religious nutjobs This is generally why I 'advocate' for atheism speficially, and street epistemology [1] generally: I want people to be able to effectively reason through their morals and beliefs, because I believe that will lead to a generally better society--or at the very least will make it easier for people to identify when they're arguing from different base assumptions. My issue w.r.t. moral agency in religious folks is it's difficult to start having conversations around things like LGBT rights because their default stance is (paraphrased) "It doesn't matter what I think is 'right' or not, because I'm not the one who gets to say what is 'right' or not--that's God's job." So before we can even get to the concept of "when (if ever) can you impose these moral beliefs on another" they're refusing to engage with the concept of a morality where that question matters. To answer your specific question, no, I don't believe "any and all of [my] rights can and should be taken away if a majority of the people agree you shouldn't have those rights" because it doesn't align with my own moral perceptions: I don't think the majority is obviously correct. (For example, I am illegal in 71 countries and can be legally executed in 12. Perhaps not a strict majority, and I"m using laws as an indicator of moral policy, but certainly a lot of people--regardless, I do not agree with these things.) That said, my perceptions __can be flawed__. I would hope that the tools I use to build them, and my willingness to discuss/argue/test them with others will prevent them from being egregiously wrong, but it is still possible that they would remain wrong. This makes it possible for me to correct my moral system where it is found lacking. [1]: https://streetepistemology.com/ https://streetepistemology.com/
- csisnett 6y ago
  Christians do not advocate for slavery. Many laws of the old testament were for the jews living at that moment of human history. If you tried to establish a slave free society in a small nation sorrounded by slave owner empires how much time do you think that would last?
wing-_-nuts 6y ago
Why would my morals be based on other people's beliefs? They simply boil down to a question of 'does this harm others, in a provable way?'
- umvi 6y ago
  > They simply boil down to a question of 'does this harm others, in a provable way?' And when there are interest groups pumping money into research to ensure the thing does not harm others in a provable way? It's like cigarettes in the 40s. Tobacco usage was both moral and socially acceptable because big tobacco pumped money into the research to ensure the perception was that it did not cause harm. That was eventually disproven, but it took decades, and we no doubt have modern day "big tobaccos" pumping money into research to ensure their product/ideology/etc. is "proven" not to cause harm. You may think something is moral now but will change your mind later. For example, you may think it's perfectly fine for a person to attend church today, but what if research comes out later that religion provably harms children, would you then be on board with banning religion? And if so, doesn't that disturb you that a slightly different society might come to an equally "proven" conclusion that atheism provably causes harm to society?
  - wing-_-nuts 6y ago
    To expand on my moral philosophy, I think someone should be free to do as they please unless there is evidence that it harms someone else. Harm is defined by the preponderance of evidence. A few contrarian papers sponsored by big corporate interests aren't going to change that. I take a fairly firm stance on what constitutes evidence, and when in doubt, lean towards individual freedom over society's view of something.
    - umvi 6y ago
      > A few contrarian papers sponsored by big corporate interests aren't going to change that. It's more than that. Not just big corps but sometimes prominent scientists, or political movements have agendas and biases that influence research (studies related to racism, sexism, and diversity/equity come to mind). There are also research "cabals" that won't let you publish research contrary to the groupthink. And on top of all that there is a "reproducibility crisis" that especially impacts social science/medicine. > and when in doubt, lean towards individual freedom over society's view of something. I think this is the right stance. Too many people (in my opinion) cherry pick papers on topics that do not have a "preponderance of evidence" (or have even been reproduced a single time) in order to fight for policy changes or otherwise bolster their stance.

by umvi 6y ago

tenacious_tuna 6y ago

> You'll have a broken moral system imposed on you either way I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how moral systems work, one that is perpetuated by the church. In Christianity, there is a specific "source" of morality, one that's (supposedly) infallible and unquestionable. This leads to problems when the infallible-unquestionable source of morality endorses things like slavery [1]: if it's unquestionable and infallible, how can your moral system be adapted to address this shortcoming? (This is usually handwaved away by theists by saying something like "oh that's the old covenant", or "that was a different god", which uses strange internal doctrinal shenanigans to somehow justify this supreme perfect being's obvious moral shortcommings, and looks to everyone outside the religion like someone just playing the cup game.) Outside of religion, there is no single "source" of morality. There's a codified system of laws that our societies adhere to, certainly, but there's plenty of examples of how the laws do not codify morality (e.g. I am not required to be even a minimally-decent Samaritan to anyone I encounter on the street). Morality instead is something that an individual has to build for themselves, as a framework for decisionmaking in the wider world: how do you choose between your available actions? what are your guiding principals? Some decide that, for various reasons, they cannot support industrial animal agriculture, and turn vegan. Some decide they fundamentally disagree with the structure of our police forces. Some turn pacifist--but all come to these conclusions through their reasoning. They absolutely can (and do) borrow reasoning from other sources, but it's impossible for it to be 'imposed' on them because there is no 'higher power' that has the absolute moral right. This is something that's frustrated me when trying to engage with religious people on other moral issues; a few months ago I was talking to my mom about the concept of wealth redistribution, as to me it seemed incredibly immoral that people like Jeff Bezos can have an insane amount of wealth while we still have children in our schools who can't afford lunch or library books or are even homeless. My mother (Christian) couldn't get around the idea that she had no right to impose her perceived morality on another: that it would be wrong to support laws requiring the redistribution of wealth. She had similar issues with LGBT rights: she could see the harm caused to LGBT people, and did not want to participate in that harm, but struggled to support them because she felt like codifying moral support for something, which she didn't have the power to do. This removal of one's own ability to develop and test morals is part of what disturbs me greatly about the church. It makes it very difficult to demonstrate when people make mistakes, how they have harmed other people, and how they might go about avoiding that in the future. [1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&versi...

umvi 6y ago
> My mother (Christian) couldn't get around the idea that she had no right to impose her perceived morality on another I mean... you probably can't get around that idea either. Or do you believe that any and all of your rights can and should be taken away if a majority of the people agree you shouldn't have those rights anymore (even if the majority are religious nutjobs who decide you should not have a right to consume alcohol because it's immoral)?
- tenacious_tuna 6y ago
  > even if the majority are religious nutjobs This is generally why I 'advocate' for atheism speficially, and street epistemology [1] generally: I want people to be able to effectively reason through their morals and beliefs, because I believe that will lead to a generally better society--or at the very least will make it easier for people to identify when they're arguing from different base assumptions. My issue w.r.t. moral agency in religious folks is it's difficult to start having conversations around things like LGBT rights because their default stance is (paraphrased) "It doesn't matter what I think is 'right' or not, because I'm not the one who gets to say what is 'right' or not--that's God's job." So before we can even get to the concept of "when (if ever) can you impose these moral beliefs on another" they're refusing to engage with the concept of a morality where that question matters. To answer your specific question, no, I don't believe "any and all of [my] rights can and should be taken away if a majority of the people agree you shouldn't have those rights" because it doesn't align with my own moral perceptions: I don't think the majority is obviously correct. (For example, I am illegal in 71 countries and can be legally executed in 12. Perhaps not a strict majority, and I"m using laws as an indicator of moral policy, but certainly a lot of people--regardless, I do not agree with these things.) That said, my perceptions __can be flawed__. I would hope that the tools I use to build them, and my willingness to discuss/argue/test them with others will prevent them from being egregiously wrong, but it is still possible that they would remain wrong. This makes it possible for me to correct my moral system where it is found lacking. [1]: https://streetepistemology.com/ https://streetepistemology.com/
csisnett 6y ago
Christians do not advocate for slavery. Many laws of the old testament were for the jews living at that moment of human history. If you tried to establish a slave free society in a small nation sorrounded by slave owner empires how much time do you think that would last?

wing-_-nuts 6y ago

Why would my morals be based on other people's beliefs? They simply boil down to a question of 'does this harm others, in a provable way?'

umvi 6y ago
> They simply boil down to a question of 'does this harm others, in a provable way?' And when there are interest groups pumping money into research to ensure the thing does not harm others in a provable way? It's like cigarettes in the 40s. Tobacco usage was both moral and socially acceptable because big tobacco pumped money into the research to ensure the perception was that it did not cause harm. That was eventually disproven, but it took decades, and we no doubt have modern day "big tobaccos" pumping money into research to ensure their product/ideology/etc. is "proven" not to cause harm. You may think something is moral now but will change your mind later. For example, you may think it's perfectly fine for a person to attend church today, but what if research comes out later that religion provably harms children, would you then be on board with banning religion? And if so, doesn't that disturb you that a slightly different society might come to an equally "proven" conclusion that atheism provably causes harm to society?
- wing-_-nuts 6y ago
  To expand on my moral philosophy, I think someone should be free to do as they please unless there is evidence that it harms someone else. Harm is defined by the preponderance of evidence. A few contrarian papers sponsored by big corporate interests aren't going to change that. I take a fairly firm stance on what constitutes evidence, and when in doubt, lean towards individual freedom over society's view of something.
  - umvi 6y ago
    > A few contrarian papers sponsored by big corporate interests aren't going to change that. It's more than that. Not just big corps but sometimes prominent scientists, or political movements have agendas and biases that influence research (studies related to racism, sexism, and diversity/equity come to mind). There are also research "cabals" that won't let you publish research contrary to the groupthink. And on top of all that there is a "reproducibility crisis" that especially impacts social science/medicine. > and when in doubt, lean towards individual freedom over society's view of something. I think this is the right stance. Too many people (in my opinion) cherry pick papers on topics that do not have a "preponderance of evidence" (or have even been reproduced a single time) in order to fight for policy changes or otherwise bolster their stance.