|
|
|
|
In the western hemisphere in which most of us live more and more people are becoming alienated from religion (all religions) and many have adopted atheism or agnosticism as a working philosophy. It is possible that by the end of this century religion, as we know it, will be acknowledged only by a fringe minority.
I think that is is fair to say that much of the ethics upon which western society is based derive originally from religious teachings (though often they have undergone a secular reformulation). But surely, even a society which professes no religious affiliations would need lofty teachings and maxims from which it can derive inspiration and direction.
I thought that it might be interesting if we could compile a list of teachings and maxims that people here have that inform their ethical path in life?
It's only fair that I set the ball rolling. Here are three statements (two of them from my own cultural/religious tradition) that have meaning for me. There could be more later.
1. Never do to anyone else what you would not like them to do to you.
2. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
3. The world rests on three pillars: on justice, on truth and on peace.
What do you find right or wrong with these statements? What statement or statements do you have that have an ethical meaning for you?
J F R
[Updated on: Thu, 11 January 2007 17:04]
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
Hi.
None of your statements. What I do know is that religion no matter what sort causes death and hardship to people, why because of the brain washing effect,
Look at the state of the earth, look at the constant problems in the Far East, look at so called efnic cleansing, I can go on and on, but I can’t change the world, this has gone on since cave man days, I am surprised that in the intelligent parts of the world it still goes on...
How can man kill man, or be part of mass killing think he is correct then go and
Pray in a place of worship as if nothing has happened.
Wow what a crazy place and some think that when they die they move on to a different level in god’s kingdom? I suppose you move to this place for being a good person.
No pun intended but enjoy. All those who do believe please don’t be offended it is my opinion.
Re Jack
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a fascinating topic, JFR! I'll try to keep my responses down to under ten thousand words ...
> 1. Never do to anyone else what you would not like them to do to you.
This one is pretty close to what I try to do, although I prefer to think of the slightly more positive thing of "Treat others as you would like to be treated." ... so it includes offering support where requested, as well as giving space and freedom where requested.
> 2. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
This one, predictably, I have real problems with. I'm not sure that 'good' and 'evil' are definite or absolute, and contemporary judgements are often not validated by history. So, at least some of those active in the Spanish Inquisition undoubtedly believed that they were genuinely saving immortal souls, and they faced up to and acknowledged the possibility that their actions might be wrong and might therefore place their own souls at risk of eternal damnation. By their own standards they were "good", although most people nowadays would not see their actions as such. There are, of course, endless such examples in the sad course of human history.
So, I think that I'd say something like "Respect each others views". In detail, this would be roughly "No adult human is entitled to forcibly impose their views on another - even when convinced it would be in that other's best interests. Parents and those dealing with children should where possible lead by example and convince rather than dictate, although this will depend on the child's individual development. Adults who fail to respect others may be sanctioned or segregated from society by a social/group decision to the minimum extent necessary to protect other individuals (not society)."
This is a very grey area, full of complexities. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers here!
> 3. The world rests on three pillars: on law, on truth and on peace.
The Law? But things that have been legal and even required at some times in some places have been illegal and disapproved of in other times and places. I have little time for the law ... too often it is one group imposing its will on another (apartheid in South Africa, for example). I don't mind laws existing ... but I think that it should be necessary for it to be shown that some individual was disadvantaged, damaged, or injured before any prosecution under any law can be brought.
The Truth? But anyone who's ever taken a bunch of statements from people all of whom witnessed the same event knows that every observer sees things differently: sometimes, quite genuinely and truthfully one will get completely contradictory accounts. And how much more is this the case on a world stage! I'm afraid that I think that the best we can ever do (and that rarely) is an absence of wilful deceit. Even if that means being long-winded in trying to put things over accurately
Peace? Well, I'm a pacifist, so yes. But not a sterile peace where everyone has been reduced to thinking the same. Not a scared peace where dissent results in internal exile or death. An active, sharing, peace, where discussion and lively disagreement are expected and welcome - between individuals and between nations.
So, my views on how to get to peace? Well, I could express it in any number of ways, but basically it's my belief that violence nearly always leads to an inflationary spiral of violence ... "Bear no grudges" might do, except that I think that humans are very bad at this! "... they sow the wind and shall reap the whirlwind" might be another way of putting it. The quote that is my current signature is another.
So now to add one. There are a whole bunch of ways of formulating it. "Lead by example" is one. "Be the best you can" is another. To me, it means trying to live according to your principles, in the hope that others will feel a respect for that, that you may influence others to find similar values. But the classic quote - the one that actually inspires me as a maxim, is Ghandi "Be the change you wish to see in the world".
Impossible, of course - no human can live up to it. But to try ... repeatedly and undismayed by failure ... now that is well worth doing.
So, my personal list:
Treat others as you would like to be treated.
Respect the views of others
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence
Try to be the change you wish to see in the world
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack, I know that you're not alone in feeling that!
But I would suggest that there are two quite different things here. "Religion" is a word which is used both to cover what I would call "spirituality/mysticism" and "ethics/morality".
I don't think there's a necessary connection between the two. Ghandi, Martin Luther King, etc certainly had strong spiritual lives, and also put forward moral/ethical views which I generally agree with. On the other hand, several of the Nazi leaders seem to have had mystical experiences in the pagan/occultist tradition (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and moral/ethical systems which I find extremely distasteful.
"Religious" (spititual) views, experiences, traditions are undoubtedly powerful. But I don't see them as in themselves either good or bad - I think they need to be filtered through a rational ethical system, and "by their fruits shall ye know them".
To me, this is a necessary consequence of God being not only greater than we know, but greater than we CAN know - which means that we ALL are bound to misinterpret the little bit of God that we individually are capable of perceiving.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I didn’t have a chance to comment on this thread when it first appeared – health problems have been limiting my time at the keyboard – so I’m taking the liberty of reviving it now.
I’m not sure that I can accept JFR’s basic proposition that ethics derive from religion, though within the sphere of influence of the major religions ethics became inextricably entwined with religious dogma.
Adopting a purely philosophical view, I’d suggest that ethical principles are a logical and inevitable part of the process of social evolution. At a fairly early stage, our ancestors were able – in a simplistic way – to distinguish ‘good’ (things or behaviours which were beneficial) from ‘bad’ (things or behaviours which were detrimental). Many of the higher primates have this ability.
As man developed increasing brainpower, collective perception of good and bad would be progressively refined, and ‘ethics’ are arguably a codification of behaviour which is perceived to be good. Thus, within a tribe, it became clear that killing your neighbour because you wanted his spear was not a good plan, since his family would retaliate by killing you and the tribe would be weakened by the resultant feuding. This of course is the principle set out in the commandment that neighbour’s asses are not to be coveted.
Obviously there is scope for almost endless discussion, but I won’t take the matter further, as that is not what the thread is really about.
I can’t fault the first of JFR’s principles. I accept NW’s point and, working on the basis that in such matters brevity aids clarity, I think that the version usually quoted in the North and in Scotland – “Do as you would be done by” – is hard to beat.
On the second principle, I have to disagree with NW (It isn’t really ‘Bash NW Week’, though my recent posts might suggest otherwise!). I disagree on two counts. First of all, though I’m much more a dove than a hawk, I am not a pacifist. Pacifism runs contrary to my conception of logic. If I walk down the street and see a child being assaulted by a bigger child, I see it as my duty to intervene. If I walk down the street with half-a-dozen friends and see someone being assaulted by five or six youths, I see it as our collective duty to intervene. I cannot see why this principle should change simply on the grounds of scale. If a population is oppressed and mistreated, I feel a responsibility to do whatever I can to mitigate and, hopefully, ultimately to prevent their suffering. Should I ignore genocide simply because it occurs on the other side of an arbitrary line separating one state from another? I don’t think that I should.
The second count is the issue of respect. I don’t subscribe to the view that I should necessarily ‘respect’ someone else’s views. To me, respect is something to be earned rather than an automatic entitlement. I do not respect those who call for Sharia Law because I sincerely believe that Sharia Law is ethically indefensible and that those who advocate it are concerned with the zeal for power rather than by any sort of moral consideration.
I acknowledge NW’s argument that standards and perceptions change with the passage of time, but I think that many of the wrongs of the past are attributable to religion. The rest (slavery, for example) are attributable to greed and self-interest. It therefore seems to me that if we exclude religion and self-interest from our thinking, our ethical conclusions will be the best that humanity can achieve at our present state of development.
In summary, I am entirely happy with JFR’s second proposition.
Moving on to JFR’s third proposition, I see that NW responds on the basis that JFR proposed ‘The Law’ as the first of his three pillars. In fact, JFR actually proposed ‘Justice’ – a related, but not synonymous term. I have serious reservations about Law. Currently, in the United Kingdom, a 25-year-old can have anal intercourse with a consenting 16-year-old and the law is content. But if the 25-year-old, with full consent, takes a nude photograph of the 16-year-old, he commits a criminal offence which, if prosecuted, would place his name on the sex offenders register for life and seriously damage his career prospects for the next 40 years. How bizarre is that? But as well as being bizarre, it is plainly unjust; justice is a concept above and apart from law. So I can accept that pillar.
‘Truth’ doesn’t give me any problems; as a principle it is absolute, even if human fragility means that our perception of truth is not always consistent.
‘Peace’ is more difficult. The pursuit of peace is admirable, but if we regard peace as the opposite of warfare, I think that NW’s misgivings are justified.
Overall, I think I side with NW; ‘pillars’ are rather dodgy concepts in the search for ethical commandments.
I don’t accept NW’s addition; though I have the utmost admiration for Gandhi, this particular quote is a ‘soundbite’, an abstract ideal which has no direct relationship to the daily lives of those to whom it was addressed.
For my part, I’d suggest the principle that I have argued oft and long in my posts – that we should always act in the way which offers the greatest benefit to the greatest number of our fellow-men. Put another way, in the strict Darwinian sense, we should always seek to evolve in the manner most advantageous to our species.
In conclusion, I have to say – very selfishly – that even if this post bores the pants of those who read it, I’ve enjoyed writing it. For that, JFR and NW, I thank you!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's too much in there for me to reply to all of it. So please excuse if I ignore some points, and treat others with brevity!
cossie wrote:
On the second principle, I have to disagree with NW (It isn’t really ‘Bash NW Week’, though my recent posts might suggest otherwise!). I disagree on two counts. First of all, though I’m much more a dove than a hawk, I am not a pacifist. Pacifism runs contrary to my conception of logic. If I walk down the street and see a child being assaulted by a bigger child, I see it as my duty to intervene. {snip}
So, of course, do I. But I don't think that violence is an appropriate intervention strategy. Non-violence does not imply inaction
> The second count is the issue of respect. I don’t subscribe to the view that I should necessarily ‘respect’ someone else’s views. To me, respect is something to be earned rather than an automatic entitlement. I do not respect those who call for Sharia Law because I sincerely believe that Sharia Law is ethically indefensible and that those who advocate it are concerned with the zeal for power rather than by any sort of moral consideration.
I think this dishonours the very real views that some people hold. Provided there is no attempt to impose punishments under Sharia law on others, I can see no objection to it being agreed on as appropriate between consenting adults, and I think that a mature society should recognise this. I am using "respect" in the sense of 'refrain from violating', not in the sense of 'consider to be worthy', and I gave some pretty clear limits on this in my first post.
>I acknowledge NW’s argument that standards and perceptions change with the passage of time, but I think that many of the wrongs of the past are attributable to religion. The rest (slavery, for example) are attributable to greed and self-interest. It therefore seems to me that if we exclude religion and self-interest from our thinking, our ethical conclusions will be the best that humanity can achieve at our present state of development.
I don't think that any of us are able to divorce our views from a historical context in that way, and I don't think that religion and self-interest are the only things that cause wrongs. I - for example - feel that violence is never a long-term answer, and that eventually this perception will become increasingly common. I know this view is not widely shared ... but I don't feel that those who defend the use of violence are always acting in a self-interested way. Conversely, there are religious positions now abandoned that I am now beginning to feel have much to commend them - for example, I start to feel that usury (the lending out of money at interest) underlies a lot of western societies problems.
Moving on to JFR’s third proposition, I see that NW responds on the basis that JFR proposed ‘The Law’ as the first of his three pillars. In fact, JFR actually proposed ‘Justice’ – a related, but not synonymous term. {snip}
I took the words as JFR originally wrote them - we've discussed it and I understand that "justice" is perhaps a better translation and I'm happy with the edit.
> justice is a concept above and apart from law. So I can accept that pillar.
I don't think that many people would agree about what was "just", or even "fair" in many circumstances ... it's a very culturally-determined concept. Some people see capital punishment of murderers as simple "eye for an eye" justice, others don't. Getting people to agree on "justice" is like trying to herd cats.
> ‘Truth’ doesn’t give me any problems; as a principle it is absolute, even if human fragility means that our perception of truth is not always consistent.
I trained as a scientist, and I think that probably shows. So I really am not convinced that there is any such thing as absolute truth (except in a mathematical/logical/tautological sense) - there are reports and interpretations which are more (or less) consistent and/or repeatable.
> ‘Peace’ is more difficult. The pursuit of peace is admirable, but if we regard peace as the opposite of warfare, I think that NW’s misgivings are justified.
We usually find things that we can agree on (grin)
> I don’t accept NW’s addition; though I have the utmost admiration for Gandhi, this particular quote is a ‘soundbite’, an abstract ideal which has no direct relationship to the daily lives of those to whom it was addressed.
Maxims usually are soundbites ... This one is something that I find very concrete and does impact my daily life a lot. Giving examples would make me look both eccentric and slightly self-congratulatory ... but if I say that it covers things like using public transport wherever possible, paying attention to food-miles and buying seasonal local food, and (when I was working) being the kind of senior manager that juniors could come to to discuss things with informally when they were having problems, that's the kind of thing I'm thinking of.
> For my part, I’d suggest the principle that I have argued oft and long in my posts – that we should always act in the way which offers the greatest benefit to the greatest number of our fellow-men.
I'd love to agree with this formulation, but I can't. I'm pretty sure that missionaries thought that's what they were doing, and so did Torquemada, and Matthew Hopkins (the witchfinder-general) and countless thousands of others whose actions I find repugnant. It may be trite, but "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
> Put another way, in the strict Darwinian sense, we should always seek to evolve in the manner most advantageous to our species.
I don't see that this actually means anything concrete day-to-day. In the long term, "most advantageous" could mean genetic engineering to enable us to live in a marine environment because we've screwed up the land, or on another planet because we've rendered this one uninhabitable. Or it could mean that if we screw up too badly, let's have a nuclear war to give ourselves lots of mutations, in the hope that some will prove well-adapted to the new circumstances.
> In conclusion, I have to say – very selfishly – that even if this post bores the pants of those who read it, I’ve enjoyed writing it. For that, JFR and NW, I thank you!
Thanks cossie, and as always I enjoy reading what you enjoy writing! Hope things are better for you soon.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
The problem with snip quotes is that it makes further responses a bit more difficult!
In response to my comment about scale, illustrated by the example of intervening to protect a victim of street violence, NW said:
“So, of course, do I. But I don't think that violence is an appropriate intervention strategy. Non-violence does not imply inaction.”
I find that difficult to accept. If someone is being beaten in the street, his attacker is unlikely to respond to a polite request to desist. To bring the attack to an end, it would be necessary to physically restrain – and, if justice was to be done, physically detain – the attacker until the police arrive. Arguably, restraint by superior physical power is itself a form of violence. But let’s suppose that a youngster is being mugged and physically injured by a young adult, and the only person to come upon the scene is another youngster. In terms of relative strength, the adult could easily deal with both youngsters. The second youngster is returning from baseball practice, and is carrying his bat. He sees – or fears – that the first youngster is at risk of serious injury. He hits the attacker over the head with his baseball bat, knocking him out. Is that violence justified? I would argue that it is. And, of course, it is always a matter of scale. Armed police are surrounding an armed suspect. The suspect shoots a hostage, and is about to shoot another. A policeman shoots the suspect. Is that violence justified? Whose life should be regarded as more sacrosanct? – because, in that situation it is virtually certain that someone is going to die. So to invasion by another power. Do we surrender meekly? Even if the invading power has demonstrated a bloodthirsty disregard for human rights, and even for human life? And what if the invasion is not of our own country but of another country with which we have very close links and a treaty of mutual defence and support? I can’t see that the moral position is any different.
As an instinctive ‘dove’, I absolutely agree that violence should never be invoked except as a last resort, but I cannot see any logic for ruling it out absolutely. I don’t seek to support the current wars, particularly in Iraq – not because I believe the original invasion was necessarily unjustified; no-one who is not privy to inner government policy CAN know the extent to which the WMD issue was influenced by inept intelligence work as opposed to overt mis-representation – but because the invasion was so incompetently handled. Anyone who had ever read a children’s history book about the Middle East must have known that internal faction fighting was inevitable and that much greater resources would be required to contain it. I don’t advocate support for any war in which the strong seek to manipulate or exploit the weak, or for any war declared in the name of religion or on purely ethnic grounds. But that still leaves me free to support war as an ultimate response in some other situations – including, obviously, as a means of defence against external aggression.
In short, there are few absolutes in the lives of individuals or nations. I don’t for a moment advocate violence as any sort of desirable option, but equally I cannot see the logic for removing that option without any sort of regard for circumstances.
NW then said, in response to my comments regarding Sharia Law:
“I think this dishonours the very real views that some people hold. Provided there is no attempt to impose punishments under Sharia law on others, I can see no objection to it being agreed on as appropriate between consenting adults, and I think that a mature society should recognise this. I am using "respect" in the sense of 'refrain from violating', not in the sense of 'consider to be worthy', and I gave some pretty clear limits on this in my first post.”
NW, I hope we respect each other enough for it not to cause offence if I say that I find your viewpoint incredibly naïve. The whole point of Sharia Law is that its proponents believe in its absolute authority. A huge percentage of those who offend against it do not accept that absolute authority. Can you really believe that someone sentenced to death for being homosexual CONSENTS to such treatment? When Tony Blair recently called upon Muslims to comply with British Law, at least a couple of clerics appeared on TV arguing that Sharia Law took precedence over civil law. And Sharia Law is in some respects an exercise in semantics; some major British banks offer ‘Sharia-compliant’ mortgages and savings accounts, but to an accountant the result is still interest paid and interest received. No, there is nothing there that I can respect, either in practice or in principle.
As regards the concept of ‘respect’, yes, by your definition, I would respect institutions and practices which were self contained and did not seek to impose their beliefs upon the wider world. But I seek to distance myself from such concepts as ‘belief’, in the search for what might be described as ‘philosophical virtue’. Thus I can respect the Episcopal Church in the USA, because – apart from a handful of seceding congregations – it makes no attempt to control or condemn those who are not Episcopalian. By contrast, I cannot respect the evangelistic sects which condemn anyone who does not conform to their (often peculiar) beliefs and standards.
I guess that brings me back to what I said in my previous post – respect (by whatever definition) is something to be earned.
I then said that, if we could exclude religion and self-interest from our thinking, our ethical conclusions would be the best that humanity could achieve at its present state of development. NW replied:
“I don't think that any of us are able to divorce our views from a historical context in that way, and I don't think that religion and self-interest are the only things that cause wrongs. I - for example - feel that violence is never a long-term answer, and that eventually this perception will become increasingly common. I know this view is not widely shared ... but I don't feel that those who defend the use of violence are always acting in a self-interested way. Conversely, there are religious positions now abandoned that I am now beginning to feel have much to commend them - for example, I start to feel that usury (the lending out of money at interest) underlies a lot of western societies problems.”
Well, I’d certainly go so far as to say that violence is rarely a long-term answer. But you assert that religion and self-interest are not the only things that cause wrongs – without offering any examples of what you have in mind. That’s cheating! As regards usury, well, in essence, that means capitalism – and the only alternative strategy man has yet come up with is communism which, on the evidence, simply doesn’t work. I do think that there is a possible compromise: Socialism. Communism works – or purports to work – on the premise of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’. This is inherently unsound, because it assumes that those with the necessary talent will – for example – spend years of effort learning to be surgeons, only to be rewarded at the same level as agricultural labourers. That, of course, is alien to human nature. Socialism, at least in its basic form, substitutes ‘contribution’ for ‘need’ in the communist canon; the surgeon will be rewarded in proportion to his efforts, but inheritance taxes will prevent his wealth passing down the generations unless they, too, make an exceptional contribution. But, sadly, this ethic doesn’t seem to be too popular!
I attempted to distinguish justice from law. NW said:
"I don't think that many people would agree about what was "just", or even "fair" in many circumstances ... it's a very culturally-determined concept. Some people see capital punishment of murderers as simple "eye for an eye" justice, others don't. Getting people to agree on "justice" is like trying to herd cats."
OK, you’re provoking me here! The human race is as it is. Not all have equal talents, but all are deserving of respect or, at least, understanding. Capital punishment is perhaps a natural reaction, but – in essence – it’s the lynch-mob reaction. You hit the button when you speak of the ‘capital punishment of murderers’. But the hard fact is that our justice system is far from reliable in determining who is, and who is not a murderer. In the UK, there are many examples of overturned convictions on the basis of evidence unearthed long after execution would have taken place if the UK had not abolished the death penalty. If USA readers think things are different over there, I recommend that they read John Grisham’s factual account of a case which went too close to the edge – the title is ‘An Innocent Man’. I suppose that what I’m saying is that – perhaps in parallel to the priests of the ancient Jews – we need to have regard to our philosophers in priority to those who bay for blood.
In response to my assertion that truth is absolute, NW said:
“I trained as a scientist, and I think that probably shows. So I really am not convinced that there is any such thing as absolute truth (except in a mathematical/logical/tautological sense) - there are reports and interpretations which are more (or less) consistent and/or repeatable.”
Well, by academic qualification, I’m a mathematician, so that may have a bearing! Nonetheless, I’d argue that truth IS absolute; what happened happened. It is our subsequent perception of truth which is susceptible to error. I’m so glad we could agree about peace (Grin and big hug!).
I quarrelled with NW’s promotion of the quote from Gandhi: "Be the change you wish to see in the world" – on the grounds that it was a ‘soundbite’. NW replied:
“Maxims usually are soundbites ... This one is something that I find very concrete and does impact my daily life a lot. Giving examples would make me look both eccentric and slightly self-congratulatory ... but if I say that it covers things like using public transport wherever possible, paying attention to food-miles and buying seasonal local food, and (when I was working) being the kind of senior manager that juniors could come to discuss things with informally when they were having problems, that's the kind of thing I'm thinking of.”
Well, I do all of that, except the public transport thing – but I do it instinctively, not because I’m following any sort of mantra. As regards public transport, I’m a committed campaigner for improvement. To me, it’s unacceptable for local authorities simply to make car usage expensive; if they expect commuters to leave their cars at home, they must invest in making public transport an attractive and practical alternative – and that means that the walk element should not exceed 400 metres and the frequency at peak times should not exceed 5 minutes.
Then I aired my favourite principle of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. NW said:
“I'd love to agree with this formulation, but I can't. I'm pretty sure that missionaries thought that's what they were doing, and so did Torquemada, and Matthew Hopkins (the witchfinder-general) and countless thousands of others whose actions I find repugnant. It may be trite, but "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
But both of these (and, by implication, the ‘countless others’ to which you refer) sought justification in religion – and I have tried to exclude religion from the equation.
As regards the ‘Darwinian’ element, all I was suggesting is that we should do our best for our species. That, surely, means our rational best – not the ‘Armageddon’ assumption of what might happen in the worst possible scenario.
And I enjoyed this response, too. My apologies to anyone I’ve bored out of their skull!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm only going to pick up on a few points here - much of this is stuff that we've talked about before, or I have other reasons for not wanting to go into.
cossie said:
NW, I hope we respect each other enough for it not to cause offence if I say that I find your viewpoint incredibly naïve. The whole point of Sharia Law is that its proponents believe in its absolute authority. A huge percentage of those who offend against it do not accept that absolute authority. Can you really believe that someone sentenced to death for being homosexual CONSENTS to such treatment? When Tony Blair recently called upon Muslims to comply with British Law, at least a couple of clerics appeared on TV arguing that Sharia Law took precedence over civil law. And Sharia Law is in some respects an exercise in semantics; some major British banks offer ‘Sharia-compliant’ mortgages and savings accounts, but to an accountant the result is still interest paid and interest received. No, there is nothing there that I can respect, either in practice or in principle.
It may sound simplistic to say that that is just simply the basic liberal paradox - that the only point of view that one is justified on forcing on others is that no-one may force their view on others.
I agree that many who seek to observe Sharia law seek to impose it on others - but many who seek to observe it do NOT. I'm afraid that I see your response as being like condemning all Christians, simply because historically some sects have believed in forcible conversion. And most of all, I cannot accept your implication that personal moral positions should be subservient to civil law. I think there's a hierarchy of universality in ethics, and that while civil law may legitimately forbid things that adversely affect others, it takes a lower priority than personal morality in matters of (eg) sexual conduct between consenting adults, or willingness to accept military conscription.
Well, I’d certainly go so far as to say that violence is rarely a long-term answer. But you assert that religion and self-interest are not the only things that cause wrongs – without offering any examples of what you have in mind. That’s cheating!
OK, on the level of nations, I think there's very little a nation can do that is not greed, religion, or self-interest - certainly if one includes "enlightened self-interest". So I'll concede on that. At an individual level, of course, things like domestic abuse are a wrong ..., at a group level overt racist behaviour is wrong, but there are no direct analogues at the national level that do not have a least a religious and self-interested dimension.
Now, as for truth and justice. I don't think we're ever going to agree on this: I see them as cultural constructs, you don't. I would actually find it conforting to share your views ... but I can't bring myself to. Am I alone in finding it rather ironic that I am the one professing religious views and you are not, given that usually religious belief is taken to be associated with a belief in absolutes?
The Gandhi quote works for me: it reminds me to behave the way I ought to, even when I don't feel like it very much. If it doesn't for you, fine. Now, as for greatest good of greatest number" - sure it's a wonderful concept. But utterly useless unless one has perfect knowledge of the situation and outcomes. The history of International Aid is littered with perfectly good perfectly well-meaning people who very genuinely were doing their absolute best to achieve the best possible outcome for all ... and screwed up spectacularly. I'm afraid I'm having a deeply cynical day ...
So, back to the original topic - the thing that we mostly seem to agree on is that no-one should forcibly impose their views on another. Well, I find that very encouraging and positive, and a pretty good start!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Cossie,
Nice post. I generally agree with what you say and would add this:
In most cases where there is what I would call the "liberal viewpoint" it tends to be altruistic (sp?) and tends to ignore that there is evil in the world, or at least minimizes what effect it has on things and people. Evil is the major reason for the problems we have with each other in spite of any religious dogma or beliefs you may bring into the equation.
We sometimes call this by names such as 'human nature' etc, but the existance of evil is why societies have always had to set up laws to regulate behavior and interaction between persons. In some cases, such as the attack on the one person by another, there is little that will stop it except for force. To deny that is to be very naive. I dont think you would purposely look for situations where you could apply force and it would be desireable not to have to do that, but we all live in the real world and it is a fact that it is necessary in some situations.
NW and the others are right also. We need to always seek to find a peaceful solution to the problems around us, but it is sometimes a dangerous thing to give an evil person the idea he can do what he pleases, even within some kind of boundary, before we will interfere. So as long as he does it to someone else and not me, I wont interfere. Iraq comes to mind of course. In the initial response to the situation, there was justification, but then things were carried too far in most people's minds. It is much like seeing that fight that Cossie used as an example. Maybe you break it up the first time you see it, but then later on it happens again; do you stand by and watch at that point? It just shows how slippery a slope it gets to be when you attempt to impose your moral views on someone. I can see why my country's involvement in Iraq at this moment is not doing much good, but what will happen if we suddenly stop? We did that very thing in Vietnam and when we left there were thousands of people put to death. We are on the back of the tiger now and can'd get off without being eaten.
Sorry to digress a bit, but it is pertianent to the discussion I think.
[Updated on: Tue, 16 January 2007 17:57]
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
First, on the issues of law. Sharia Law is fine if everyone consents to its application – but it is manifestly clear that it is imposed on many who do NOT accept its validity. You may draw a comparison with civil law, but I profoundly disagree with your proposition that (at least in a reasonably democratic society) you are entitled to disregard it. You ARE entitled to protest against it – that is surely integral to the democratic process – but protesting is not the same as ignoring. But how do you rate the survival chances of anyone who protests against Sharia Law in a community in which it is applied? I don’t see this as being any worse than the imposition of Catholic dogma in the late medieval period – but two wrongs do not make a right. But then, I don’t see your ‘liberal paradox’ as being a paradox at all; to me, the core principle is tolerance of the views of others, provided that this is a two-way process.
As regards your next paragraph, I would regard both domestic violence and racist abuse as manifestations of self-interest – and, of course, I deplore them both.
I can accept that justice is a cultural construct, but – as I’ve already suggested – if we disregard religion and self-interest we should be able to arrive at the best conception of justice that lies within man’s capabilities.
Truth is NOT a cultural construct. What happens, happens. It is absolute. The imperfections arise from our perception of truth. And I suppose that my belief in absolutes must be founded upon logic; it certainly isn’t founded upon religion!
I think that your concluding paragraphs reflect human frailty. Yes, aid agencies have made mistakes, but this is an immensely complex arena in which different ideologies are constantly in conflict with each other. Should aid be impartial? Many would say that it should. But the International Red Cross provided supposedly impartial aid to refugee camps in the Democratic Republic of Congo when those camps were filled with Hutu tribesmen who had been responsible for the massacre of the Tutsi minority in Rwanda. Those who delivered the aid felt that they were treated like servants rather than saviours. Humanity is very far from perfection, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t strive to do the best that we can do. Utopia is probably unachievable, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to reach it. And, in doing so, we can only seek to apply the knowledge and experience we have thus far acquired.
I tend to agree with Ken; there is – and always will be – evil in the world, though as an agnostic I’d rather call it selfishness. If we purport to have any ethical position, it seems to me that we must acknowledge that sometimes, as a last resort, the use of force is inevitable; if we offer no resistance to selfishness, it will prevail.
I don’t – in any way – advocate force, but in the scheme of things I cannot see any logic in ruling it out. If we seek to be moral, we must be equally moral to all men..
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
