Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Assume Nothing

Ethics and Morality

Recommended Posts

This thread seems pointless. As said on the first page, thhis needs discussing with certain subjects in mind, and has been on so many threads before.


Want to be my friend? Look under my name to the left<<< and click the 'Add as friend' button!

zqXeV.jpg

Big thanks to Stevepole for the signature!^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I thought you said it was just as bad to teach children moderate religious ideals as fundamentalist ones?

 

Do you understand the concept of opinion vs. fact? Your claim that "but the consequences of teaching their religious beliefs as objective truths are deleterious to their long-term well-being" -this is an opinion, not a fact.

 

It's also entirely possible for science and religion to co-exist - something you're conveniently ignoring because, as I said earlier, you have no interest in treating religion objectively.

 

Could you drop the 'you have no interest' crap? It's not going anywhere, is it?

 

I don't see how it's an opinion when it objectively limits what people can learn. I retract my statement about religious moderates - I don't know enough about how they interpret the purported holy texts of Yahweh. Please explain what religious moderates actually believe/do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion doesn't necessarily objectively limit what people can learn.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>necessarily

 

Please provide a detailed example of where it doesn't. I know enough about religious fundamentalists to know that they do, but not about religious moderates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must agree that child indoctrination is immoral. I don't care what you personally believe/want to believe, but children are incredibly impressionable and teaching them that your religion is correct and others are wrong is preying on their ignorance. I don't think it should be illegal or anything, I just think it's immoral to take advantage of them at that stage.

 

I would say that the best approach would be to teach them about all different beliefs as well as yours, and why you chose yours over others. And let them make their own decision with that information.

 

Skeptic, I disagree that it objectively limits the kids. If the kid is smart enough to be limited by it, then he is also smart enough to wind up choosing his own beliefs at some point rather than blindly following. If the kid isn't smart enough to choose his own beliefs, then he wasn't going to be limited in the first place now, was he.

 

But then again, this also happens with all beliefs of the parents. They teach their kids about what they think in all aspects, religion, politics, psychology. It's not limited to religion.


PM me for fitocracy invite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doublepost because

 

http://news.yahoo.com/bin-laden-told-children-live-peace-west-163431838.html

 

Slain Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden urged his children to go live peacefully in the West and get a university education, his brother-in-law said in an interview published Sunday.

Zakaria al-Sadah, the brother of bin Laden's Yemeni fifth wife Amal, told Britain's Sunday Times newspaper that the Saudi-born extremist believed his children "should not follow him down the road to jihad."

"He told his own children and grandchildren, 'Go to Europe and America and get a good education,'" al-Sadah told the Sunday Times.

Al-Sadah said bin Laden told them: "You have to study, live in peace and don't do what I am doing or what I have done."

 

Not sure how I feel about this - did the guy actually have a heart, or was he just protecting his own children (he used to use child soldiers and child suicide bombers, not often, but still)?


PM me for fitocracy invite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must agree that child indoctrination is immoral. I don't care what you personally believe/want to believe, but children are incredibly impressionable and teaching them that your religion is correct and others are wrong is preying on their ignorance. I don't think it should be illegal or anything, I just think it's immoral to take advantage of them at that stage.

 

I would say that the best approach would be to teach them about all different beliefs as well as yours, and why you chose yours over others. And let them make their own decision with that information.

 

Skeptic, I disagree that it objectively limits the kids. If the kid is smart enough to be limited by it, then he is also smart enough to wind up choosing his own beliefs at some point rather than blindly following. If the kid isn't smart enough to choose his own beliefs, then he wasn't going to be limited in the first place now, was he.

 

But then again, this also happens with all beliefs of the parents. They teach their kids about what they think in all aspects, religion, politics, psychology. It's not limited to religion.

 

So then what should you teach your children at a young age? Because parents teach their children everything - manners, political beliefs - all of those are indoctrination. Would you say that, in the interests of being objective, children should be educated about the merits of communism, or slave labour, for instance?

 

It's the role of a parent to teach their children what to believe, what to think - and to put them in a position to help them make decisions for themselves.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must agree that child indoctrination is immoral. I don't care what you personally believe/want to believe, but children are incredibly impressionable and teaching them that your religion is correct and others are wrong is preying on their ignorance. I don't think it should be illegal or anything, I just think it's immoral to take advantage of them at that stage.

 

I would say that the best approach would be to teach them about all different beliefs as well as yours, and why you chose yours over others. And let them make their own decision with that information.

 

Skeptic, I disagree that it objectively limits the kids. If the kid is smart enough to be limited by it, then he is also smart enough to wind up choosing his own beliefs at some point rather than blindly following. If the kid isn't smart enough to choose his own beliefs, then he wasn't going to be limited in the first place now, was he.

 

But then again, this also happens with all beliefs of the parents. They teach their kids about what they think in all aspects, religion, politics, psychology. It's not limited to religion.

 

So then what should you teach your children at a young age? Because parents teach their children everything - manners, political beliefs - all of those are indoctrination. Would you say that, in the interests of being objective, children should be educated about the merits of communism, or slave labour, for instance?

 

It's the role of a parent to teach their children what to believe, what to think - and to put them in a position to help them make decisions for themselves.

 

 

Well, imo it's okay to teach a child your religious values simply because there is no possible way to keep someone from it and an attempt to do that would probably only result in something very skewed. On the other hand I do NOT agree with children being made members of the parent's religion without the consent of the child (Baptising them as an infant). It's the child's right to make that decision him/herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must agree that child indoctrination is immoral. I don't care what you personally believe/want to believe, but children are incredibly impressionable and teaching them that your religion is correct and others are wrong is preying on their ignorance. I don't think it should be illegal or anything, I just think it's immoral to take advantage of them at that stage.

 

I would say that the best approach would be to teach them about all different beliefs as well as yours, and why you chose yours over others. And let them make their own decision with that information.

 

Skeptic, I disagree that it objectively limits the kids. If the kid is smart enough to be limited by it, then he is also smart enough to wind up choosing his own beliefs at some point rather than blindly following. If the kid isn't smart enough to choose his own beliefs, then he wasn't going to be limited in the first place now, was he.

 

But then again, this also happens with all beliefs of the parents. They teach their kids about what they think in all aspects, religion, politics, psychology. It's not limited to religion.

 

So then what should you teach your children at a young age? Because parents teach their children everything - manners, political beliefs - all of those are indoctrination. Would you say that, in the interests of being objective, children should be educated about the merits of communism, or slave labour, for instance?

 

It's the role of a parent to teach their children what to believe, what to think - and to put them in a position to help them make decisions for themselves.

 

 

Well, imo it's okay to teach a child your religious values simply because there is no possible way to keep someone from it and an attempt to do that would probably only result in something very skewed. On the other hand I do NOT agree with children being made members of the parent's religion without the consent of the child (Baptising them as an infant). It's the child's right to make that decision him/herself.

 

By that token, you shouldn't be able to enroll a child in school, or in sports, or in music lessons, or anything, without their consent. Children are not capable of making many decisions for themselves; so parents do it for them with the child's best interests at heart.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're deliberately obfuscating the term 'indoctrination'. Indoctrination entails teaching children to accept religious doctrines as facts without question/doubt, as to cast doubt is deemed blasphemous.

 

Parents should only teach their children what to believe if it's factual (i.e. backed up with empirical data) - otherwise, it should be taught as what it is - opinion.

 

I honestly don't think you're putting them in a position to make decisions for themselves if you're teaching them what to think/believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in·doc·tri·na·tion  [in-dok-truh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA

noun

the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indoctrination

 

Indoctrination doesn't apply only to religion.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right - it does apply to more than religion.

 

in·doc·tri·nate/inˈdäktrəˌnāt/

Verb:

Teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically: "broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses".

 

But we're not teaching children to accept things uncritically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who says the only way to teach religion is via indoctrination?


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody did. It just happens to be the most popular method, by far. I find that highly immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what may well be a vain attempt to bring this topic away from the flame and back to the OP subject matter....

 

There is no such thing as morality. All actions deemed moral/immoral derive from a biological imperative. Applying any moralistic value to any action is an intrinsically immoral action, as it necessitates the construct of an ethical framework that all participants are aware of, not necessarily having agreed upon (although that would be nice). It is impossible for all potential participants within the framework to be consulted, rendering the framework invalid.

 

For example.

 

There's me, a sweet little trout swimming up stream to fulfil my biological imperative. And lo! I spot a tasty snack along the way. So I try to eat the worm. However, it's attached to a hook, and now I'm drowning in fresh air!!! All because a human followed another biological imperative to consume protein. If I had the command of intelligent thought, I may consider this a fair action, I took the risk, and got caught. Having been caught, I have enabled some other being to fulfil their biological imperative, as such, my life and death has meaning and value in this big wide world. However, I might also think that this was an unfair act. No-one consulted me or my kind to let me know what the rules were. If they had I might have decided that sticking a worm on a hook to trick me is in effect an act of war on my kind. I could justify my retribution as a valid action, for trying to make my kind safe from those that try to kill us. Or even as a valid action on behalf of the nation of worms. After all, they are cruelly snatched from their homes, impaled and then drowned! It's barbaric!

 

 

However, there is a valid argument that also states that there is a need for the construct of an ethical framework which allows moralist values to exist. Unfortunately, it leads to all kinds of trouble.

 

If you take Rousseau's idea that all should have an equal say in government, there will always be a number of people who would vote for extreme policies. However, the majority would plump for the middle ground. As such populist demands/ideals would prevail. This kind of governing would benefit the majority, with the extremes being in the minority. Over time there might be slight shifts to the left or right, but a common ground would be found. Having found a common ground, there are numerous benefits to society as a whole.

 

The problems we have today regarding emotive issues such as religious practices, military policy, economic globalisation etc, are problems because although it may well be the folks on the extreme edges of society strongly disagreeing with the majority, there are so many of us on the planet, that even at the extremes of religious intolerance and political idealism, it's a huge number of people. And a huge number of people will always make a lot of noise.

 

So...we back on topic?


Cultjunky.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody did. It just happens to be the most popular method, by far. I find that highly immoral.

Source?


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no such study as of yet, but given that it's standard practice to impart knowledge to adherents via indoctrination in Christian societies, it's pretty easy to deduce.

 

When's the last time a Christian told their child to question religious teachings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with morality is that in order to define something as 'good,' you must first have a point to reference 'good' to. In other words, you cannot have something that is good without also having something that is bad. It's severely limiting.

 

Then you have to ask: from which source do we derive moral authority? People of religion sometimes refer to their sacred texts, others look to nature, but we have no single source of moral authority in this world--at least not one that we can agree on. Instead, we rely on law.

 

In America (and many other parts of the world), our conception of what is right/wrong or good/bad is displayed in our laws. Again there is a problem here. Conceptually, law is a wonderful idea--people are given a written code of what is acceptable to do and what is not--but it is only the consequences of our actions that influence our decisions, not simply because an action is morally right or wrong. Law is a very inefficient way of enforcing morality.


phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no such study as of yet, but given that it's standard practice to impart knowledge to adherents via indoctrination in Christian societies, it's pretty easy to deduce.

 

When's the last time a Christian told their child to question religious teachings?

If there's no factual evidence to support your claim, don't make the claim.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet, even without the claim, your point still lacks sufficient support for 'Religious indoctrination is not immoral'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one claiming it is immoral - therefore the onus is on you to prove it so - I haven't seen you do so, despite many baseless claims.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll write an elaborate post tomorrow - I'm short on time today. The arguments against child indoctrination on moral grounds isn't anything new though - it'll be reiterating many of the pre-existing points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just go by the "I wouldn't want it to happen to me" rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll write an elaborate post tomorrow - I'm short on time today. The arguments against child indoctrination on moral grounds isn't anything new though - it'll be reiterating many of the pre-existing points.

Then why didn't you just say "It's immoral for parents to indoctrinate their children"? Why did you go one step further by stating that the majority of Christian parents indoctrinate their children?[1]

 

Can't you see that the former is a reasonable opinion, whereas the latter is a totally unsubstantiated 'matter of fact' statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.