Which religion has done the most for Social Justice?

[urban-hermit]

We hear a lot with some recent books about how bad religion is. Where would we be without it?

 

[ribozyme]

I do not know why “atheism” is a religion or a choice in your post.

Atheism is compatible with many different philosophies; for example, Nietzscheism, existentialism, objectivism, and utilitarianism.

I am a utilitarian and I do believe that most (of course not all) of the ideals encompassed by utilitarianism is compatible with the Catholic notion of “social justice.”

I do believe the formulations of “social justice” expatiated by philosophers such as Peter Singer and John Stuart Mill superior to Catholic social justice.

 

[deb1]

II do believe the formulations of “social justice” expatiated by philosophers such as Peter Singer and John Stuart Mill superior to Catholic social justice.

At one point Peter Singer wrote an article stating that in some instances beastility might not be immoral. If I remember correctly, he got blasted by PETA for that.

I am only familiar with the history of Islam, Christianity and Judiasm when it comes to social justice. So, I answered Christianity. It would be interesting to hear how Buddhism has assisted the poor and needy in Asian countries. If I couldn’t, for some strange reason, be Jewish or Christian, then I would probably be Buddhist.

 

[mommyof4]

Christianity, of course. What would you expect us to answer on here?

 

[ribozyme]

At one point Peter Singer wrote an article stating that in some instances beastility might not be immoral. If I remember correctly, he got blasted by PETA for that.

I am only familiar with the history of Islam, Christianity and Judiasm when it comes to social justice. So, I answered Christianity. It would be interesting to hear how Buddhism has assisted the poor and needy in Asian countries. If I couldn’t, for some strange reason, be Jewish or Christian, then I would probably be Buddhist.

Beastility is inconsistent with Peter Singer’s preference utilitarian theory if pedophilia is also deemed immoral. Pedophilia is not advocated by utilitarian ethics because the child could not rationally consent to such the sexual act so they are incapable of giving any real consent. But if you replace “child” with “animal,” you still have an argument against zoophilia.

 

[KarenNC]

Unfortunately, I don’t have enough familiarity with the Asian religions and their history or with the history of Islam to make a really meaningful comparison, but certainly in the Western world various strands of Christianity have in different ways in different times provided a great legacy of working toward social justice as has Judaism. Overall I would say that Christianity and Judaism’s heritage of seeking social justice probably outweighs those times in which specific branches of each have been forces for just the opposite.

 

[rlg94086]

At one point Peter Singer wrote an article stating that in some instances beastility might not be immoral.

Apparently so. And, polyamory, necrophilia, infanticide, euthanasia…
worldmag.com/articles/9987

Don’t expect Peter Singer to be quoted heavily on the issue that roiled the Nov. 2 election, same-sex marriage. That for him is intellectual child’s play, already logically decided, and it’s time to move on to polyamory. While politicians debate the definition of marriage between two people, Mr. Singer argues that any kind of “fully consensual” sexual behavior involving two people or 200 is ethically fine.

For example, when I asked him last month about necrophilia (what if two people make an agreement that whoever lives longest can have sexual relations with the corpse of the person who dies first?), he said, “There’s no moral problem with that.” Concerning bestiality (should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he responded, “I would ask, ‘What’s holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?’ [but] it’s not wrong inherently in a moral sense.”

If the 21st century becomes a Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts. Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their ill older children? Mr. Singer: “It’s difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, [but] they’re not doing something really wrong in itself.” Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? “No.”

 

[Transformer]

Don’t expect Peter Singer to be quoted heavily on the issue that roiled the Nov. 2 election, same-sex marriage. That for him is intellectual child’s play, already logically decided, and it’s time to move on to polyamory. While politicians debate the definition of marriage between two people, Mr. Singer argues that any kind of “fully consensual” sexual behavior involving two people or 200 is ethically fine.

For example, when I asked him last month about necrophilia (what if two people make an agreement that whoever lives longest can have sexual relations with the corpse of the person who dies first?), he said, “There’s no moral problem with that.” Concerning bestiality (should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he responded, “I would ask, ‘What’s holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?’ [but] it’s not wrong inherently in a moral sense.”

If the 21st century becomes a Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts. Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their ill older children? Mr. Singer: “It’s difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, [but] they’re not doing something really wrong in itself.” Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? “No.”

Ribozyme, in what sense is the vision of justice presented above superior to the one presented in Catholicism?

 

[ribozyme]

Ribozyme, in what sense is the vision of justice presented above superior to the one presented in Catholicism?

Its consequential focus on the elimination of suffering, not only in humans, but in animals.

 

[deb1]

Its consequential focus on the elimination of suffering, not only in humans, but in animals.

Well, a child being born simply to be used as body parts for another child would certainly be suffering. Don’t you think so?

I have to admire Singer for his honest, logical approach to his own ethics, though. He doesn’t shy away from following his beliefs to their logical extremes. There is an honesty in that, even though I agree with little that he says.

 

[mahoneyt]

Why would you ever care about Socail Justice if youre an Athiest? Who cares, just do whatever the hell you want.

 

[KarenNC]

Why would you ever care about Socail Justice if youre an Athiest? Who cares, just do whatever the hell you want.

I know several atheists who are very committed to social justice (I can’t tell you whether they are a representative sample or not, as I don’t know that many atheists–all the ones I know care about social justice). I can actually see a greater reason for an atheist to care about social justice than a theist because s/he does not expect or depend on any deity to solve the problems humanity faces–it is up to us to clean up our own messes. Also such efforts aren’t done out of fear of divine punishment or in hope of divine reward. This is the world in which we live and the life we have—it is up to us to make of it the best possible one we can.

 

[rboo124]

Why would you ever care about Socail Justice if youre an Athiest? Who cares, just do whatever the hell you want.

???

I have friends who are atheist. Are you confusing anarchists with atheists?

I totally disagree with their outlook on God and religion…so much in fact, I don’t even bother discussing it anymore. Their logic regarding escapes me.

However, they are caring, loving, charitable, good people. They don’t live their lives doing ‘whatever the hell they want’…at all.

What examples can you give to explain your statement? I’m very curious…

 

[catharina]

I’ll say Christianity when and where it’s been practiced as it should be practiced.

After that, I’d say Judaism with the same qualification.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I know several atheists who are very committed to social justice (I can’t tell you whether they are a representative sample or not, as I don’t know that many atheists–all the ones I know care about social justice). I can actually see a greater reason for an atheist to care about social justice than a theist because s/he does not expect or depend on any deity to solve the problems humanity faces–it is up to us to clean up our own messes. Also such efforts aren’t done out of fear of divine punishment or in hope of divine reward. This is the world in which we live and the life we have—it is up to us to make of it the best possible one we can.

While this is true, in an ideal sense, from the standpoint of an atheist. It is also true, that the athiest can violate this ideal with no consequences. For example, we Christians know that there are consequences when we sin, and yet we still sin anyway. I wonder if an atheist would be more likely to depart from their ideal, given that they can do so with no consequences?

 

[KarenNC]

While this is true, in an ideal sense, from the standpoint of an atheist. It is also true, that the athiest can violate this ideal with no consequences. For example, we Christians know that there are consequences when we sin, and yet we still sin anyway. I wonder if an atheist would be more likely to depart from their ideal, given that they can do so with no consequences?

I am sure that every person fails to live up their own highest expectations from time to time. I don’t see that atheists are inherently more or less likely to do so. Social justice issues and things considered sins according to a particular religion are not necessarily interchangable. For instance, it is a sin for a Catholic to miss Mass, but it is not a social justice issue.

I’m not sure why you believe there are no consequences to a failure to act to rectify societal problems. Death, disease, crime, poverty, malnutrition, environmental destruction, etc would all seem to be pretty major consequences to me. The issues facing all of us regardless of our religion carry their own consequences without having to involve a deity at all.

I do agree that an atheist who is passionate about social justice is inherently less likely to be motivated by an external motivation such as fear of reprisal from an outside source than from an internal motivation.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I’m not sure why you believe there are no consequences to a failure to act to rectify societal problems. Death, disease, crime, poverty, malnutrition, environmental destruction, etc would all seem to be pretty major consequences to me. The issues facing all of us regardless of our religion carry their own consequences without having to involve a deity at all.

What I meant was that to the atheist, there are no personal consequences to violating your standards. If an atheist doesn’t give money to the poor, somebody might go hungry, but the atheist himself is not affected. Whereas, if a Christian neglects the poor, that is a sin and there are personal consequences to sin.

 

[Bennie_P]

What I meant was that to the atheist, there are no personal consequences to violating your standards. If an atheist doesn’t give money to the poor, somebody might go hungry, but the atheist himself is not affected. Whereas, if a Christian neglects the poor, that is a sin and there are personal consequences to sin.

such as here in Matthew?

Mat 25:32

And all nations shall be gathered together before him: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
Mat 25:34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Mat 25:35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
Mat 25:37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed thee: thirsty and gave thee drink?
Mat 25:38 Or when did we see thee a stranger and took thee in? Or naked and covered thee?
Mat 25:39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
Mat 25:40 And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

I do know athiest that are concerned about many social justice causes, but I also see were many of them are confused on the issue of human rights when they conflict with life such as the rights of the unborn vs. individual choice to take a innocent life. It should be a no-brainer social justice is built into what Christ commands us to do, yet even with Christianity leading in the way in Social Justice issues we still have a long way to go. I don’t see too many homeless shelters ran by athiests nor Buddhist for example, but I do see athiest and those of different religions working together on homeless and other poverty based problems. Now if we could just get everyone on board concerning the unborn… and those at the end of life…

 

[KarenNC]

What I meant was that to the atheist, there are no personal consequences to violating your standards. If an atheist doesn’t give money to the poor, somebody might go hungry, but the atheist himself is not affected. Whereas, if a Christian neglects the poor, that is a sin and there are personal consequences to sin.

Let me clarify what I hear you saying:

The Christian who gives to the poor does so in hopes that he will be rewarded by escaping the punishment that he knows will come if he does not give.

The atheist who gives money to the poor does so without any reasonable expectation that doing so will benefit him personally at all.

I have to say that I know which person I would admire more in that sort of situation.

 

[KarenNC]

I don’t see too many homeless shelters ran by athiests nor Buddhist for example, but I do see athiest and those of different religions working together on homeless and other poverty based problems.

Have you considered that you may not “see too many homeless shelters run by atheists or Buddhist” because those people are more concerned with the most efficient means of helping those in need? That they work within existing structures rather than feeling the need to create their own separate ones, greatly increasing overhead, bureaucracy, etc just so that they can be labeled with the name of their religion or organization? Or that you may simply not be looking in the right places?

In our area, the homeless shelters are run primarily by the government, not by any specific religious group.