Why are discussions about morality so futile?

[PRmerger]

PRmerger

There are also atheist fanatics. Ask him if that means we should eschew atheism.

Indeed. Just google “atheists mocking” and you’ll be astonished at the vulgar fanaticism that comes up.

 

[PRmerger]

Not if it’s incorrect, no. I obviously think that it’s wrong to believe in something that’s not true.

Exactly. And the corollary to that should be, “I obviously think that it’s right to believe in something that’s true.”

That’s why I said that truth matters. Even if you can be moral without a belief in God, if there is a God, then you ought to believe in His existence. His ability to influence your morality is irrelevant, in the context of this discussion at least.

As uncomfortable as it can be to know the truth, I don’t think that people should be encouraged to believe something that is wrong even if it makes them happier and morally better. I**’m optimistic enough (or perhaps naïve enough) to think that people can still attain happiness and still be moral agents without incorrect beliefs**.

The bolded part appears to be a non-sequitur. I don’t understand what you mean. Without the double negatives, it appears that you are you saying “People can be happy and moral with correct beliefs”?

In Santa’s case, I have no problem in playing along with what is in effect a fairy story to keep children happy. Just as I would have no problem in reading them bed time stories that we both treated as real. But I’d be a worried parent if they didn’t grow out of this period and see life as it really is. That fat old blokes don’t leave presents and fairies don’t swap teeth for cash and there is no magic castle in the enchanted woods. None of this is, in any case, needed to become happy and moral.

You are correct.

But the vast majority of the world’s population have much more sophisticated beliefs that they do seem to need to become so. That without these beliefs they would (as a lot of them tell me continuously), have no basis for their morality and life would have no meaning. Do I think that it’s right that they should think this? (and we’re not just talking Catholicism or even Christianity). No I do not. I think that it’s very wrong indeed. But if their belief causes no harm and they believe it does them good, then there is a very strong argument for maintaining the status quo. That is, I would not flick that switch and remove the belief. And quite frankly, I’d be seriously very worried about what might happen if I did.

Fair enough.

There is no causal link, I know. One doesn’t lead to the other. But, the argument goes, you could line up a thousand people, with the little old lady at one end and the guy in Khabul at the other, and ask each of them about their religious beliefs. And you wouldn’t be able to tell one person’s beliefs from the beliefs of the person standing next to them. But as you worked your way along the line, the views would become gradually more strident. And eventually lead to views that no reasonable person would accept.

I’ve not heard this argument before, but it’s one that argues for the need for an Absolute Truth if I ever heard one!

To the degree that each of these people standing in line is consonant with the Absolute Truth is the degree that removes him from fanaticism.

 

[Bradski]

All ideologies can lead to fanaticism.
There are democracy fanatics. Does that mean we should eschew democratic values?
There are science fanatics. Does that mean we should eschew science?
There are drug abusers. Does that mean we should eschew drugs?
There are fanatical parents. Does that mean we should eschew parenthood?
All ideologies set up a system in which fanaticism can flourish. That is not an indictment of that particular ideology.

The only example that comes close to being an ideology (and is therefore valid for the argument) is democracy. If I may, can I use the term ‘political ideology’ as opposed to ‘democracy’ as I have difficulty thinking of a fundamentalist democrat that would serve as a negative example. Taking democracy to the extreme seems to be a good thing.

But in that regard, you have a fair argument. That is, if I state that an ideology like religion can lead to fanaticism, it could equally be true for politics. I’d agree. And I would have to say that one couldn’t eschew politics because of that. But neither have I said that religion should be avoided.

But I have an equally intense dislike for political fundamentalism as I do for the religious type. That is, the political player who will brook no argument that he could be wrong and will insist on everyone following his direction. Politics is the art of the possible. That is, it is an exercise in compromise. Religion cannot, by its own definition, entertain such an idea (although the Catholic laity would seem to disagree with that comment in regard to matters like gay marriage and contraception).

So if a particular ideology is open to discourse, discussions and compromise in its outlook, if it is willing to take on new ideas and reject old ones that are longer suitable and accept that not everyone is going to agree with them, then despite the fact that it may lead some to become fanatics and to demand that their views be accepted, sometimes with the use of violence, then it shouldn’t be proscribed.

**The first is undeniable: It does lead to extremes of thought and fundamentalist beliefs which undoubtedly have negative effects on how people live. **

Again, that is true for some religions.

You missed out the word ‘other’.

**And the second is equally undeniable: It leads people to believe things that aren’t true. **

That is the opinion of the unbeliever, who cannot not know whether atheism is true and very possibly doesn’t believe in truth in the first place.

No. It’s the belief of everyone on the planet. Each atheist thinks that every person of every religion believes things that aren’t true. And every religious person thinks that every member of every other religion believes things that aren’t true. So the statement: ‘It leads people to believe things that aren’t true’ is something on which we both agree.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

Politics is the art of the possible. That is, it is an exercise in compromise. Religion cannot, by its own definition, entertain such an idea (although the Catholic laity would seem to disagree with that comment in regard to matters like gay marriage and contraception).

Politicians who compromise too often compromise with the devil. We have seen the Constitution shredded over and over. We have seen a President who refuses to defend and enforce certain laws of the land. The Catholic Church in all its teachings does not compromise with the devil. That does not mean many Catholics are not corrupted by the political correctness of gay marriage and contraception. When the devil owns nearly all the media and academia, you know the world has compromised with him. Yes, politics is the art of the possible … and possibly it is the art of total self destruction.

Why do you think Homeland Security has purchased more bullets than the U.S. Army?

rt.com/usa/us-homeland-security-bullets-congress-703/

 

[PRmerger]

The only example that comes close to being an ideology (and is therefore valid for the argument) is democracy.

sigh

I was going to put the disclaimer that I did not intend a narrow def of “ideology”.

Rather than “ideology” substitute “conceptual frameworks” or just “thoughts” or “ideas” or “theories” or 'behaviors" or “actions”.

If I may, can I use the term ‘political ideology’ as opposed to ‘democracy’ as I have difficulty thinking of a fundamentalist democrat that would serve as a negative example. Taking democracy to the extreme seems to be a good thing.

No, extremism in democracy is not a good thing. To wit:

econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/08/gov_is_not_grea.html
civilwarlibrarian.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-clash-of-democracys-zealots-full-of.html
theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/richard-salsman-religion-of-democracy-undermines-rights/
libertyscott.blogspot.com/2006/06/worship-of-democracy.html

As someone who knows about these things said, “Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.” (Which sounds like an extremist view in itself…)

But this is all I will say in that regard because politics (along with poetry and sports radio) make my eyes glaze over.

But in that regard, you have a fair argument. That is, if I state that an ideology like religion can lead to fanaticism, it could equally be true for politics. I’d agree. And I would have to say that one couldn’t eschew politics because of that. But neither have I said that religion should be avoided.

So if we are agreed that zealotry in all areas of thought is possible, and that you do not wish to eliminate religion from the social horizon, what are you arguing for? (I do not mean: “why are you arguing this?” I mean, “What position are you arguing for?”)

But I have an equally intense dislike for political fundamentalism as I do for the religious type. That is, the political player who will brook no argument that he could be wrong and will insist on everyone following his direction. Politics is the art of the possible. That is, it is an exercise in compromise

If you say so.

Religion cannot, by its own definition, entertain such an idea

Ridiculous, Bradski. And I am offended that you say that after all of our discussions.

(although the Catholic laity would seem to disagree with that comment in regard to matters like gay marriage and contraception).

True. There are lots of folks who want to argue for square circles. I can’t help that.

 

[ngill09]

Indeed. Just google “atheists mocking” and you’ll be astonished at the vulgar fanaticism that comes up.

Are we comparing mockery to terrorism now?

 

[PRmerger]

Are we comparing mockery to terrorism now?

Sure. In the way that they are alike, they are alike. In the way that they are dissimilar, they are dissimilar.

I feel as if there are some who don’t understand metaphors and analogies here.

No one ought to take offense to reasonable comparisons. Where they are alike, they are alike. Where they are different, then discard that part.

For example, for someone to say, “Are we comparing Jesus to a piece of fruit* now?” when we pray the Hail Mary tells me that this person has an inability to think in the abstract.

NB: please understand that I am not saying that some analogies cannot be offensive. There are indeed some very, very offensive comparisons. To wit: I’ve been in a discussion with a pro-abortion activist who compared the unborn baby to a parasite. That, folks, is a clear example of offensive comparisons.

*Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

 

[ngill09]

Sure. In the way that they are alike, they are alike. In the way that they are dissimilar, they are dissimilar.

I feel as if there are some who don’t understand metaphors and analogies here.

No one ought to take offense to reasonable comparisons. Where they are alike, they are alike. Where they are different, then discard that part.

For example, for someone to say, “Are we comparing Jesus to a piece of fruit* now?” when we pray the Hail Mary tells me that this person has an inability to think in the abstract.

NB: please understand that I am not saying that some analogies cannot be offensive. There are indeed some very, very offensive comparisons. To wit: I’ve been in a discussion with a pro-abortion activist who compared the unborn baby to a parasite. That, folks, is a clear example of offensive comparisons.

*Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

I think mockery and mass murder are dis-analogous.

 

[PRmerger]

I think mockery and mass murder are dis-analogous.

Ok.

I do, too.

 

[DanAl]

The reason is simple; our ethical systems are completely different. The christian sysem is “deontological” (rule or command based), while the secular system (mine and other atheists with whom I conversed) is mostly “consequentialist”. Not fully, because we consider the “end” and the “means” equally important.

For the deontological approach the main emphasis is on obedience. The result is at best secondary, or more likely irrelevant. Looking at the example of Abraham, it would have been “moral” for Abraham to go ahead and kill his son, if God would not have stopped the execution. This proves that obedience is much more important than the “usual” moral consideration against murder. Also looking at Genesis, the “original sin” was disobedience.

For the consequentialist the means and the outcome are relevant, while the “intent” is not important. If someone does a lot of good deeds just to be proud of himself, the christian view condemns him for “pride” (mortal sin!), and disregards the good deeds. The consequentialist does not care about the intent, the good deeds are sufficient.

The christian system is not consistent. On one hand it says that “good deeds” are not sufficient to have an act be considered moral, unless the “intent” was also good - in other words, the deed cannot be “intrinsically good”. On the other hand it declares that some actions are “intrinisically evil”, even if those deeds are beneficial or neutral. Ho-hum! Just another inconsistency, of course - among the many.

No wonder that there is no common ground.

Of course, it is obvious that consequentalism is a superior system of ethics. Kill a child and sell his part to benefit others or , hell, build a factory with the expressed intent of killing them and selling their parts for the sake of the majority is what an honest to god ethical system is all about.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The reason is simple; our ethical systems are completely different. The christian sysem is “deontological” (rule or command based), while the secular system (mine and other atheists with whom I conversed) is mostly “consequentialist”. Not fully, because we consider the “end” and the “means” equally important.

For the deontological approach the main emphasis is on obedience. The result is at best secondary, or more likely irrelevant. Looking at the example of Abraham, it would have been “moral” for Abraham to go ahead and kill his son, if God would not have stopped the execution. This proves that obedience is much more important than the “usual” moral consideration against murder. Also looking at Genesis, the “original sin” was disobedience.

For the consequentialist the means and the outcome are relevant, while the “intent” is not important. If someone does a lot of good deeds just to be proud of himself, the christian view condemns him for “pride” (mortal sin!), and disregards the good deeds. The consequentialist does not care about the intent, the good deeds are sufficient.

The christian system is not consistent. On one hand it says that “good deeds” are not sufficient to have an act be considered moral, unless the “intent” was also good - in other words, the deed cannot be “intrinsically good”. On the other hand it declares that some actions are “intrinisically evil”, even if those deeds are beneficial or neutral. Ho-hum! Just another inconsistency, of course - among the many.

No wonder that there is no common ground.

Why don’t you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, perhaps you will learn what we actually do believe. You cannot judge Christian morality by the case of Abraham, God was testing Abraham’s faith. That is all we know. No man can judge God, that is a very dangerous game. And no man can judge Abraham in his trial either.

God tests us all but most of us fail easy enough. Not many of us would trust God to fulfill his promise in view of the test he gave Abraham. But Abraham never lost faith that God would make his descendants a great race through Isaac.

Linus2nd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Of course, it is obvious that consequentalism is a superior …

Why don’t you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, …

Observe the status of the user to which you are responding. Adjust your expectations for a response accordingly.

 

[PRmerger]

Observe the status of the user to which you are responding. Adjust your expectations for a response accordingly.

Friend, could you please be a little less obscure? To whom are you addressing the above? Linus or Dan?

What expectations are we supposed to have?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Friend, could you please be a little less obscure?

Sure, I can.

To whom are you addressing the above? Linus or Dan?

Both, as they both were responding to Tyron.

What expectations are we supposed to have?

The status that shows below your name is “Forum Elder.” Take a look at Tyron’s status and I think all will be clear. He won’t be responding.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, I can.

Both, as they both were responding to Tyron.

Ah, I see.

The status that shows below your name is “Forum Elder.” Take a look at Tyron’s status and I think all will be clear. He won’t be responding.

I don’t find it inutile to respond to banned posters. Firstly, some of them are still able to come to the CAFs and read responses. They are just banned from posting. So it is useful for them to see their positions addressed.

Secondly, I post often for the lurkers, rather than the original poster. Sometimes it’s clear that the poster is recusant to any type of logic or reasoned discourse. No matter. There are a multitude of lurkers who may benefit from reading a response.

Thirdly, responding to banned posters may still further dialogue, as our responses will segue into new tributaries.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t find it inutile to respond to banned posters.

I don’t either. It’s only the expectation for a response that I’m trying to address as any responses won’t be from the user to which the message was targeted. It may be useful to know that the user has exited the conversation.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t either. It’s only the expectation for a response that I’m trying to address as any responses won’t be from the user to which the message was targeted. It may be useful to know that the user has exited the conversation.