Ethics and Morality

[Assume Nothing]

I realise that it was my fault - it's unnecessary to point it out again. I'm still confused on how someone could think child indoctrination is indeed, moral - or at least, not immoral, though.

[Bows]

Morality and ethics are purely social constructs.

Ahh, this is why we're friends.

[Ginger_Warrior]

If you're God-fearing, and you're concerned that your children's lack of belief might lead to them being 'punished' in whatever way, is it then moral to indoctrinate them so they avoid a worse fate? OK, you and I don't believe in Hell or the afterlife, but other people do. How is it immoral to make sure your children have the best chance of going to Heaven?

 

</devilsadvocate>

[Assume Nothing]

If I was theistic, I'd be closer to a maltheist than Christian. I see Yahweh's actions as depicted by Biblical texts to be highly immoral too - he commands slavery, rape, genocide, etc.

 

EDIT - This is not a response to Gingy_Warr.

[Ginger_Warrior]

That has got to be the best get-out answer I've ever read on OT. Didn't give a direct answer to anything I questioned. Fantastic job.

[Assume Nothing]

I'm not God-fearing, so it'll be pointless to pretend that I was. Nor was that a direct response to your responses.

 

If I suppose that if I had adopted religious beliefs, but kept my moral code the same, I'd say that it'll still be immoral to indoctrinate a child because I believe that heaven is a place for Christians to worship an immoral God. I believe worshiping an immoral God is immoral because it's effectively endorsing immoral actions, which maximises pain/suffering and minimizes happiness/love/pleasure/well-being.

 

I'm guessing if I was a strict utilitarian, it would be justified to indoctrinate, if Yahweh truly did exist as depicted by the Bible and I was God-fearing. I don't happen to be a strict utilitarian, though.

 

Are you happy now?

[obfuscator]

Don't see why he would be, because your casting of yourself in that hypothetical situation is pretty half-assed.

 

You've also ignored the posts about other indoctrination of children that happens much more often than religious indoctrination - yet your only issue seems to be with religious indoctrination.

[Assume Nothing]

Source? Where are children being taught to think uncritically? I have a problem with that too, if you could identify it. Do they happen to instill significant levels of fear, too? You know, like the statements regarding eternal fiery torture if they practiced normal activities, like masturbation?

 

Your argumentation has been no better than mine. Before you remove a splinter from your neighbour's eye, first remove the plank from your own eye.

[obfuscator]

Once again - you're making the blanket assumption that religious teaching is teaching children to think uncritically, and have not backed it up with any single piece of factual evidence. This is untrue - I don't know how many times I have to say it before you understand it.

 

Teaching children politics, manners, societal behavior - all of that qualifies as indoctrination. But you aren't taking issue with that - that's my point.

[Randox]

My religion does not preclude my morals, nor my scientific understanding thanks. It does for some people, but I do right by the law (with perhaps a couple exceptions), and I don't look to the bible for scientific understanding.

 

 

Mostly, I am interested in ethics in why we do what we do. I find this to be quite interesting.

 

For the indoctrination, I believe that parents should pass on those beliefs that they feel make their life better. To do less would be irresponsible by me. This includes things such as teaching right from wrong, or matters of faith.

 

 

On a grand scale, I would define "right" as being whatever brings the most benefit to the most people. "Wrong" would be anything else.

[Assume Nothing]

Once again - you're making the blanket assumption that religious teaching is teaching children to think uncritically, and have not backed it up with any single piece of factual evidence. This is untrue - I don't know how many times I have to say it before you understand it.

 

Teaching children politics, manners, societal behavior - all of that qualifies as indoctrination. But you aren't taking issue with that - that's my point.

 

I'm making the assumption? It's the very definition of religious indoctrination. Define your terms if you don't agree. There's no point having this discussion if you're going to be too lazy to do these simple tasks to clarify what you mean by moral/immoral/right/wrong/ethical/indoctrination/etc.

 

If you're referring to indoctrination as 'education', then this is a meaningless discussion. I'm referring specifically to teaching children to accept religious 'truths' as factual without any evidence/argument - purely on the basis of faith or personal revelation.

 

EDIT - Oh, religious teachings, I misread. Okay, then tell me when/where would a Christian tell a child to question religious beliefs - to examine religious assertions under scrutiny?

 

EDIT 2 - Teaching politics, societal behaviours and mannerisms are nothing like religious indoctrination. You're conflating them to cause confusion. I don't take issue with those forms of 'indoctrination' because it doesn't instill fear like the way religious indoctrination does, nor does it limit learning/doubt, and it's unlikely to be as harmful to well-being on the basis of the previous premises.

[obfuscator]

Once again - you're making the blanket assumption that religious teaching is teaching children to think uncritically, and have not backed it up with any single piece of factual evidence. This is untrue - I don't know how many times I have to say it before you understand it.

 

Teaching children politics, manners, societal behavior - all of that qualifies as indoctrination. But you aren't taking issue with that - that's my point.

 

I'm making the assumption? It's the very definition of religious indoctrination. Define your terms if you don't agree. There's no point having this discussion if you're going to be too lazy to do these simple tasks to clarify what you mean by moral/immoral/right/wrong/ethical/indoctrination/etc.

 

I'm going to use bold font, maybe that will help you get the point!

 

Here we go! Are you ready? Open your eyes, now! Pay attention! Here it comes...

 

Religious teaching is not the same thing as religious indoctrination..

 

There! Don't you feel better? Now you understand what my point is, and you can stop ignoring my posts and others because you have no argument!

[Assume Nothing]

How do you distinguish religious indoctrination from religious teachings, if they both reject scrutiny and critical examination?

[obfuscator]

They don't both reject scrutiny and critical examination :wall:

[Assume Nothing]

... I've never seen a single priest, preacher, or apologist call for critical examination of their purported 'holy' texts without resorting to fallacious argumentation. I'd really like to see religious teachings that allowed adherents to question the beliefs.

[obfuscator]

And at what point did you participate in religious teaching?

[Assume Nothing]

It's part of my childhood. I've attended multiple churches before. It wasn't acceptable to question the 'word of the lord', apparently. This is still derailing from the original topic of whether child indoctrination is immoral, though.

[champion]

It's part of my childhood. I've attended multiple churches before. It wasn't acceptable to question the 'word of the lord', apparently.

I don't know what churches you were brought up in, but I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school for 8 years where we had required religious teachings and masses. We were always taught from our texts and priest that questioning of religion and doubt was perfectly normal.

[Assume Nothing]

It depends on the age range. If you were taught at the tender age of say... 5, then you lacked the capacity to be critical, so any religious teaching at that age would constitute religious indoctrination. If you were taught at 12-15, however, then it's easier to argue that it's just a teaching because you can simply reject the teachings as opposed to accepting them on the command of authority.

[champion]

If you were taught at 12-15, however, then it's easier to argue that it's just a teaching because you can simply reject the teachings as opposed to accepting them on the command of authority.

...but it wasn't. It was Catholic school with a focus on raising us with Catholic values. That was a part of what we were taught.

[Assume Nothing]

'Christian' values. Do they happen to be cherry-picked, or do they endorse slavery, rape, murder, etc. too?

[Randox]

Your assuming that the religion even really tells you what to believe. Some most certainly do, but not all of them. Some exist as a means to helping you find your own faith and beliefs.

 

Here are the beliefs that my faith would actually require of me:

1. I believe that Jesus was the son of God. This is essentially what defines me as Christian. I could however reject this and still be welcome in my current faith, I'd just have to ignore a couple things.

2. I believe in the 10 commandments in so far as I believe that following them is the right thing to do. Since none of them violate what I would consider right, I have no reason to question them.

 

Pretty much everything else would be left up to me to decide. I have discussed this sort of thing with my mother before, and I know that our beliefs are not the same (I'm not sure that my dad even believes in God, its never come up with him). That isn't a problem for us. My faith exists as guidelines to living a peaceful and kind life in this world, and as faith that it doesn't end when we die. It's really that simple.

 

 

As for indoctrination, where you are taught to believe without question. I do believe that its wrong, but I also wouldn't expect someone who is indoctrinated to do anything less than brainwash their children. It does not seem reasonable to expect that having a child would allow you to step outside your own life experience which is what would be required to do otherwise. If society wants to pass a law against it, then they should face the consequences regardless of if they believe they are doing right (welcome to my world). To really explain my point of view, I believe in doing what you believe to be right, but if what you believe is right is against the law, then you must also pay your debt to society for your actions.

 

Heinz dilemma

A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe.

 

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?[5]

 

From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:

Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he would consequently be put in prison, which would mean he is a bad person. Or: Heinz should steal the medicine because it is only worth $200, not how much the druggist wanted for it. Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.

Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would probably experience anguish over a jail cell more than his wife's death.

Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband. Or: Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he tried to do everything he could without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.

Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal. Or: Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.

Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.

Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.

 

The bolded portion being my choice of answer.

[Assume Nothing]

I'm not against every religion - I don't know enough about all of them to make that judgement. The three main contenders, the Abrahamic faiths - Islam, Christianity, Judaism happen to be in agreement in regards to religious teachings, which is indistinguishable from religious indoctrination when practiced on young children.

 

I consider absolute morality to be a flawed concept too - there are obvious exceptions to the rule, yet according to the book of revelation, no such exceptions exist. 'Thou shalt not steal' - even in the case of severe impoverishment, on the verges of death? What if theft was necessary to save lives, like the theft of a key from a corrupt guard?

 

'Thou shalt not lie' - even when not lying means condemning many people to their deaths? e.g. if you lived in Nazi Germany, and you were hiding Jews (and subsequently questioned about it) - would you lie about hiding Jews?

 

'Thou shalt not kill' - what if it was necessitated in combat, or self defense? Then again, it doesn't seem to be very well held, so it's pointless criticising this one.

 

There's problems with every commandment, which is why I'm against the notion of absolute morality as a whole.

 

I do like how Christianity forms thousands of denominations so adherents can cherry-pick and deliberately interpret the Bible in a way that suites their ideals the best. I don't understand religious moderates - what's the point? I find it easier to be deistic, but maybe that's me.

[Omar]

I don't see how indoctrination--religious or otherwise--can be avoided. You're thinking about ethics and critiquing them in a "devil's advocate" mindset, but despite the fact that you know full well they're not based on anything which can be logically proven, you still follow some sort of principle, which means you'll never really be able truly shrug off that teaching. That's indoctrination, by your definition.

[Randox]

I'm not against every religion - I don't know enough about all of them to make that judgement. The three main contenders, the Abrahamic faiths - Islam, Christianity, Judaism happen to be in agreement in regards to religious teachings, which is indistinguishable from religious indoctrination when practiced on young children.

 

I consider absolute morality to be a flawed concept too - there are obvious exceptions to the rule, yet according to the book of revelation, no such exceptions exist. 'Thou shalt not steal' - even in the case of severe impoverishment, on the verges of death? What if theft was necessary to save lives, like the theft of a key from a corrupt guard?

 

'Thou shalt not lie' - even when not lying means condemning many people to their deaths? e.g. if you lived in Nazi Germany, and you were hiding Jews (and subsequently questioned about it) - would you lie about hiding Jews?

 

'Thou shalt not kill' - what if it was necessitated in combat, or self defense? Then again, it doesn't seem to be very well held, so it's pointless criticising this one.

 

There's problems with every commandment, which is why I'm against the notion of absolute morality as a whole.

Ah, a great point.

 

But here is the thing for me, I don't consider your examples to have a right and wrong side, just two wrong sides. I have no expectation of myself or anyone else to starve rather than steal, but I don't think the circumstances make it right. I don't believe in a universal "do this", but that doesn't stop me from believing in universal principles. The nice thing about principles is they can be broken when the greater good demands it.