|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Well it is the Daily Mail, but it is not a joke.
As the son of an immigrant who assimilated himself into the community my reaction is to tell them to do the same.
As an employer I employed many Islamic staff and enjoyed their work and company. I respected then and respect now their right to their faith and culture, but some things are ridiculous.
Nonetheless one must be mindful of cow and pig fat on cartridges and the Indian Mutiny.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's always the religious right of any culture that want to force the rest of society into compliance with their "holy book". Why did these Muslims immigrate to Scotland if it wasn't to escape religious and political persecution? They won't be happy until Scotland is governed by the Koran. I hope the city doesn't capitulate. 
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
I'm in total agreement with you, it is utterly ridiculous to assume that 'your' adopted country must bend over backwards for your religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
I too totally agree. To make such a fuss over a postcard is absurd. Muslims do not do themselves any good by continuously demonstrating intolerance, which it seems they do.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 18:03] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Michael,
You wrote:
"One may live a moral life without religion, and in my view is the more admirable for doing so. One may live an amoral life while embracing religion and is more the hypocrite for so doing."
I would go a lot further than that.
I think that nearly every religion requires adherents to do immoral things so it is almost impossible to live according to a religion and keep one's moral probity.
And of course it is better to do good things for good reasons. A good thing done because it is god's (or a priest's) command cannot be a moral act because carrying out commands is not moral (unless you can choose which commands to obey and which not - which doesn't seem likely with the word of god - or, for that matter, for superiors in the forces. So I think that volunteers in the forces have given up morality too - as many examples show!
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acam wrote:
And of course it is better to do good things for good reasons.
Anthony, before I can relate to your thesis I need to understand how you define "good things" and "good reasons". Is there such a thing as absolute truth, absolute good? -a standard which can be maintained as incumbent upon every human being? Can there be only one acceptable definition of the good?
J F R
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 18:02] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. The word 'good' is the general adjective of commendation. A good knife is sharp; a good punch knocks out the opponent a good bomb goes bang - even though you may hate the consequences of such goodness. The whole thing is relative to the context and the universe of discourse.
I don't know what 'absolute truth' would be apart from truth! Truth in the real world is a property of statements and it means that they correspond with the real world. Paris is the capital of France, for example.
But there are many places where the real world isn't involved; 'parallel lines never meet' is true in Euclid and false in some other geometries, because the meaning of 'parallel line' can vary.
But as far as morality goes, if you do good things by acting randomly without thought I think that it brings no credit on you - you have just been lucky. Whereas if you do good things because you have weighed the consequences of alternative courses of action and have chosen wisely then you are a moral being and it does you credit.
And I think you are and it does!
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony, I cannot accept your explanation because it leaves too many holes. Your definition of what is good is subjective: each person must decide for themselves what is good and behave towards others accordingly. That is why I asked whether there could be an absolute good or absolute truth.
You wrote:
The word 'good' is the general adjective of commendation. A good knife is sharp; a good punch knocks out the opponent a good bomb goes bang - even though you may hate the consequences of such goodness. The whole thing is relative to the context and the universe of discourse.
And there you have said so yourself.
I don't know what 'absolute truth' would be apart from truth! Truth in the real world is a property of statements and it means that they correspond with the real world. Paris is the capital of France, for example.
Even this is subjective. Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel? It depends on who you ask.
If you do good things because you have weighed the consequences of alternative courses of action and have chosen wisely then you are a moral being and it does you credit.
The world has suffered terribly from those who choose this kind of morality. I have said before that "do unto others as you would have them do to you" is not a golden rule: it is a very bad rule; very bad indeed. Because if I want you to do something to me that is detrimental, that philosophy gives me the right to do something detrimental to you - regardless of your views on the matter. George Bernard Shaw put it this way: "The golden rule is not 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you': your tastes may not be the same!"
The safest rule, it seems to me, is the negative side of that rule, a version which was first propounded by a Rabbi 2000 years ago. His name was Hillel and he would have been a contemporary of the grandfather of Jesus of Nazareth. Hillel said: 'Do not do to someone else what you would not like them to do to you.'
It's a safe rule, I think. Surely it is better to refrain from doing to others what I think is bad that doing to them what I think is good.
J F R
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yusime
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195
|
|
|
Hi Anthony do you realize that it is because of the exact same relative absolutism the Christian Conservative movement formed out of if nothing is absolute then nothing can be considered right or wrong and people can do whatever they please without consequence! That thought alone is enough to make me believe the Christian Conservative movement is not all bad. Liberals can't win without a higher calling than "you do your thing I'll do mine" there is no way to work with people who are only concerned with themselves. They tend to become nearly as bad as Religious radicals with whom there is no compromise.
We are social beings who need a higher purpose without that we scurry along completely separated from one another. SOMETHING has to BIND humanity together or WE ARE ALL DOOMED! We may not always like each other but we do NEED each other for more than social advancement and convenience.
I agree with J F R
Thanks for listening:-)
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear JFR,
Well, the word 'good' IS subjective. Suppose you say something to me condemning something or praising it and expecting my agreement. Whatever you say I can respond 'Good!'. You might say I'd gone mad but you couldn't fault my use of English.
You say there is doubt whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That isn't a doubt about the facts. It's a doubt about the definition of 'capital' or about your interlocutor's willingness to admit to the facts. It is called the correspondence theory of Truth, but I don't think it is a theory any more. It has no rival. There is no other even plausible suggestion what truth is.
For the choice between alternative courses of action to be a moral choice you must be weighing up the consequences of the alternatives and choosing which to adopt. The grounds on which you make your choice could be completely amoral "I'm doing it instantly because my commanding officer told me to." or they could be moral if you are trying to follow some procedure which is intended to yield the best answer. But the 'best' is just using the superlative of 'good' again and that is without doubt what I say - the general adjective of commendation. And if you want to say that I should replace the word best with 'least worst' I'll say (wearily) very well then but what difference does it make?
How else do you think one should tell the difference between actions that are moral/immoral and those that have no moral content?
I agree with you that the avoidance of harm is a safer criterion than the doing of good, but I'm inclined to say that it makes no difference to the essence of the argument. Perhaps I should have been more careful in my phraseology (am I entitled to take less care on a bulletin board than in a letter or essay?) because I do.
The difference between doing good and avoiding harm is huge but in many circumstances they will yield the same answer. "don't be nasty to him." and "be nice to him" differ when you are considering hugging him but not when the question is whether to push him aside to get to the front.
But all golden rules have their exceptions. As the masochist said: "Hit me" and the sadist said "Shan't". More subjectivism.
And the school I went to was founded by Jeremy Bentham who wrote the words "The greatest good of the greatest number" as the criterion for a government choosing between alternative courses of action. And if you say it ought to be "The least avoidable harm to to everyone you can avoid doing harm to." (or your better worded phrase to this effect, then I must agree with you.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Pat,
What do you mean 'relative absolutism'? Is it the same as absolute relativism? The truth is I can't understand what you mean. As far as I understand it an absolutist is someone who won't listen to reason  .
You say "if nothing is absolute then nothing can be considered right or wrong".
Surely when you read that again you can't say you really believe it? Whether I think something is right or wrong has nothing to do with whether I think something is absolute or not. Are you any different?
You go on to say "people can do whatever they please without consequence". I think this is just nonsense. Actions have consequences and nothing can take away the consequences of actions. And nobody I know would suggest that one can be moral and ignore the consequences of one's actions. (So maybe I've misunderstood you?)
And yes we are social beings. Plainly in one sense we are not all doomed. But every one of us has to die so maybe we are. I don't think many people think the human race will last for ever so maybe we are all doomed. But how would something that bound us together stop us being doomed? I don't get it.
And what on earth makes you think that liberals are always selfish or even more selfish than conservatives. My experience is that conservatives are much more selfish than the rest of us. And this applies to Conservatives such as Mrs Thatcher. She made greed respectable and (in my view) did untold harm to English society by doing that.
And of course the Christian Conservative movement isn't all bad. It's just that trying to do what god says is a very poor way to distinguish good from bad actions. Depending on your religion god may say 'stone adulterers to death' or 'women are inferior' or 'male children must be sexually mutilated' or even 'female children ...' or 'homosexuals are to be put to death, or at any rate not to be appointed as bishops' or 'atheists are not to be allowed to earn their living' or 'females should not be allowed to go to school'. (Can you identify the origin of each of these?) Would you do anything god says, however bad it was? Well some Christian Conservatives would. I've even had one say to my face that god thinks gays ought to be put to death (but that he (not god) tolerates me out of common politeness)!
And if you want my take on this what binds me to the human race is that I like people and some of them I like very much and even love. And those I try to be very nice to. I can't be as nice as that to everybody though. But surely aren't you like me in this?
And as we both agree with JFR (yes, I do - see my answer to him) we must agree with each other, mustn't we?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yusime
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195
|
|
|
Dear Anthony, my primary point was unless there is some underlying reason more important than any individual human being for people to work together except fear humanity will destroy everything. We are on that path of destruction because of so many minor disagreements that no longer make sense to any of the people involved.
How I define relative absolutism is a belief system with extreme absolutes that are followed to only a slight degree, such as the belief of love your neighbor unless this that blah blah blah the religious conservative folly in America. How I define absolute relativism is there is no absolute good for humanity to look forward to and nothing we can ever come to agree on so we force compromise on people who are in a minority the folly of the liberals in America.
If taken to a pure sense of logic it could not make sense but add a little faith then we need some sort of certainty beyond what we see and understand, most people do at least, to make their lives meaningful. Purpose is important for everyone to have no one wants to be without meaning in life. That is where a belief in something more important than ourselves comes into play.
Even you have a system of beliefs to which you hold yourself accountable if you didn't then you would have no reason to engage in respectful conversations thus you understand the consequences of each action taken.
Religion is not only a device used to terrorize people.
Nothing can stop the individuals of our species from dying but by working together we might be able to prevent the entire planet and every living creature from going extinct because of our petty arguments.
My point is not that "liberals are more selfish than conservatives" many people as an instinct feel a need to be better than those who proclaim extreme worldly ideas that seem unattainable against the belief in national pride or a sense of unity between people who are similar an idea that is more easily accomplished because of the much smaller consensus needed to be produced. Liberals do not have a shared background but conservatives do. If liberals were connected through fear then we would be more cohesive no matter how much of a detriment it would be to any cause we could have.
Misrepresenting God is a better way to define what the Christian Conservative movement stands for despite their claims. If God is good then God would not tell me to do something that I know to be wrong. If God is not good then we have every right to unite and topple every empire that stands in the name of God.
Yes, I do try to be nice to people even if I end up disagreeing with the arguments they end up making. Most people I talk to I do like. I try not to talk to people who annoy me intentionally.
If you do not think I'm being clear then just keep asking.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Pat,
I think we are in danger of boring the pants off the others. What you originally said led me to suspect there was religious fervour behind what you were saying. Now I'm not at all sure what you want me to accept.
Would you like to continue by email? (I'm not insisting.)
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yusime
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195
|
|
|
Wow! LOL why would you think my statements had anything to do with religion? I only mentioned religion because that was part of the topic. I don't consider religion an enemy of humanity (human nature perhaps). If you wish to continue the conversation through e-mail fine. I just want you to know that I don't consider everything in life to be completely relative in nature. That severely hurts EVERY positive cause LIBERALS have come up with in modern times. I was just trying to make that basic point. I won't be surprised if everyone else is board by our conversation. Thanks for the very amusing statement it was certainly worth the time.;-D
I never expected that! I only condemn people when they deserve it when their arrogance is intended to hurt other people. Those are the ONLY religious people I CAN'T STAND! I never condemn those who try to help the powerless, and I will always defend them. Just a small look into my mind I guess!
I don't consider a little reflective thought on the positions of liberals to be a bad thing. If liberals hope to win we have to admit where we fail and how we can change that with the rest of the people.
After all we are not perfect, but neither are the conservatives.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very well put Michael.
I agree with those who propose that in many ways religion is almost evil. I am speaking of the establishments that wish to increase their influence and power and will do all these ridiculous thing we hear about in the news. If they were all tolerant of each other, I wouldnt care if someone wanted to believe in almost anything as long as they would not force me to believe the same and punish me or kill me if I didnt do so.
That intolerance by the Muslim religion is the one thing that scares me the most about them; otherwise I have no problem with them. I just wish I thought they would feel the same about my religion but I doubt it.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFR says: 'Do not do to someone else what you would not like them to do to you.' which I feel in my mind is the same thing as the golden rule but just said in a different way. I would expect that the goal of each saying is the same, but you do have a point. I think the inference in the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" statement is that those are things which you would not mind being done to you, so in effect, it is the same. The context is sometimes lost for that little saying and if you read the whole thing, it should be clear that the intention is to cause no harm to the other person in any way.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
electroken wrote:
JFR says: 'Do not do to someone else what you would not like them to do to you.' which I feel in my mind is the same thing as the golden rule but just said in a different way... I think the inference in the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" statement is that those are things which you would not mind being done to you, so in effect, it is the same.
It is not at all the same thing! If I were a devout Catholic during the age of the Inquisition I would want someone to burn me at the stake in order to save my eternal soul if I were a relapsed sinner. In my ethical code that would not give me the right to burn anyone else at the stake: they may not want to be burned to a steak.
J F R
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well so sorry as you do have a point there. My mistake is that being an engineer type I tend to be logical and not figure anyone would like to have some kind of painful thing inflicted on them.
I submit to your thinking here as what you say has been demonstrated in the past by some of those who like to put themselves up as judge over all.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Religion and morality 
