Jump to content

Ethics and Morality


Assume Nothing

Recommended Posts

You've essentially admitted that your morality is not derived from your deity - the greater good concept is a fundamental part of consequentialism. In ethical dilemmas, sometimes it's honestly choosing between the lesser of the two evils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 237
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

You've lost me from 'but despite the fact...' I don't see how there's any relationship between having moral principles to being under indoctrination? I'm confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide]

I find many Christian, and Islamic practices highly immoral. An example may be say... child indoctrination. Why must a religion be imposed on a child at such a young age? This applies just as much to religious moderates as religious fundamentalists.

Yeah! And why do we have parents forcing their kids to do homework! Reading and Math, ugh. And schools that force their students to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day! The nerve of some people!

 

Is that an attempt at sarcasm? What is your point?

 

EDIT: Oh, and that analogy fails simply because homework is beneficial in that it helps students academically, whereas religious ideals being imposed on youngsters are generally more deleterious than helpful.

facepalm.jpg

[/hide]

 

On the topic of "indoctrination":

Parents generally have their children's best interests at heart. While you or I may disagree with what they're teaching or their methods of teaching, it isn't our place to judge, and just short of abuse or neglect, we shouldn't try and get involved.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've essentially admitted that your morality is not derived from your deity - the greater good concept is a fundamental part of consequentialism. In ethical dilemmas, sometimes it's honestly choosing between the lesser of the two evils.

I don't believe I ever said I derive my morality from my faith. I believe that the commandments are worth observing yes, but that doesn't mean they preclude my morality. I do not believe in absolute morality. Everything has some flexibility. I can't really go more in depth into how that doesn't cause me a problem here, since this is not a religious thread.

 

If we're done with our religious debate, maybe we can get back to morals and ethics in general now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

You've lost me from 'but despite the fact...' I don't see how there's any relationship between having moral principles to being under indoctrination? I'm confused.

Do you not agree that morals are taught?

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skeptic, I think you're misconstruing indoctrination slightly, and in some parts wholly. The average Christian is very likely to question at some point or another the tenets of their particular denomination. (Side note here, not all denominations believe the same thing--especially when it comes to questions of morality and ethics--and lumping them all into the same category demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the intricacies of each denomination) There are no doubt some Christians who completely believe every single word of the Bible and follow it orthodoxically. Those are called fundamentalists.

 

I think the biggest point you're overlooking here is the difference between indoctrination and self-indoctrination. We are all granted with free will, that is something even the Bible recognizes. It is then a matter of individual choice whether or not a person believes wholly, partially, or not at all the doctrine of their religion. A child may be taught religion, much like that child is taught basic reading and math skills, but there is absolutely zero chance that he or she will not encounter moments of doubt or uncertainty pertaining to his or her religion. As I said, it is the individual's choice to remain indoctrinated or to follow yet question simultaneously.

 

By the way, I in no way agree with religion, but I do agree with the concept of cultural relativity, and you should too. So long as the "high wall" Thomas Jefferson wanted placed between religion and the state is the goal of our society, I think people should be free to teach their children whatever they want. It is their loss--in my opinion--if they choose to limit their intellectual capability by not questioning the things they are taught, even those to which they hold fast and dear.

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would go one step further and say that the best christian is one who has questioned their faith - and indeed, all the religious teachers I've had have encouraged that.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just questioned their own faith, but the role that faith has in modern-day society. It's all very good questioning why you might be a Catholic, but that doesn't suddenly make it acceptable to be as misogynistic and homophobic to your work colleagues as the clergy is to their own priests. Likewise, there are religious teachings which still have plenty of relevence in today's world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gingy - I understand that religious teachings can be relevant, but is it necessary? Is it not possible for secular organizations to teach the same moral values without the supernatural baggage that comes along with religion?

 

@Range - I'm not sure what the point of the distinction is, because either way - the effects of it's the same. A child of tender age, say... 5, lacks the capacity to choose to deviate away from the religion. It's much more difficult for a child of that age to think critically than a child at the age of 12-15.

 

I understand that religious moderates don't lend so much weight to the 'book of revelation', but I don't quite understand precisely how much they believe in religious texts. It's easier to criticize fundamentalists, and admittedly there has been instances where I've grouped them with 'Christians' in general.

 

Please elaborate on the ideals and practices of religious moderates, and what they believe - it's difficult to find the ideals of religious moderates, as they're less inclined to post anything in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've completely missed the point. Every child is indoctrinated in something, but once they reach the age where they have developed analytical skills, they can choose freely whether or not to believe in it. Teaching a child to read in English and teaching them the history of America is indoctrination just the same as religion is. The only difference is that you've only deemed public education as morally acceptable. That is the point I am trying to make. Feel free to research moderate Christians in your free time, I'm not doing your homework for you :P All I know is that there are many denominations and they all take different approaches towards interpreting the Bible.

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've completely missed the point. Every child is indoctrinated in something, but once they reach the age where they have developed analytical skills, they can choose freely whether or not to believe in it. Teaching a child to read in English and teaching them the history of America is indoctrination just the same as religion is. The only difference is that you've only deemed public education as morally acceptable.

 

what the [bleep]

 

wouldn't think you being a uni student and a historian would say this

 

the biggest difference being american history (and the english language) has been exhaustively documented, discussed and covered -- and is pretty much asserted and based in fact whilst the other party is spinning fictions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've completely missed the point. Every child is indoctrinated in something, but once they reach the age where they have developed analytical skills, they can choose freely whether or not to believe in it. Teaching a child to read in English and teaching them the history of America is indoctrination just the same as religion is. The only difference is that you've only deemed public education as morally acceptable.

 

what the [bleep]

 

wouldn't think you being a uni student and a historian would say this

 

the biggest difference being american history (and the english language) has been exhaustively documented, discussed and covered -- and is pretty much asserted and based in fact whilst the other party is spinning fictions

 

(Coming from another history University student)

 

At the same time, teaching a specific countries history over others can cause a nationalistic spirit which could be just as bad as religion. And at an early age, you are not taught to question history, even though it is constantly being rewritten. I would even say that up until higher education history is taught as fact and not fallible, which is proven in your post.

 

I personally just say teach children what will best get them through their education and social life as best as possible, and when they are old enough they can make their own mind up. Until then, they are not responsible enough to make their own decisions. So unless you want to teach them nothing or things that you as a parent do not believe (which will not happen), just teach them what you know as a parent.

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!^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've completely missed the point. Every child is indoctrinated in something, but once they reach the age where they have developed analytical skills, they can choose freely whether or not to believe in it. Teaching a child to read in English and teaching them the history of America is indoctrination just the same as religion is. The only difference is that you've only deemed public education as morally acceptable.

 

what the [bleep]

 

wouldn't think you being a uni student and a historian would say this

 

the biggest difference being american history (and the english language) has been exhaustively documented, discussed and covered -- and is pretty much asserted and based in fact whilst the other party is spinning fictions

And the bible hasn't been exhaustively documented, discussed and covered? Also, as a history student you should know that much of what is taught as historical fact is certainly up in the air - and it's generally accepted that there are large gaps in our knowledge of history and much of what is being taught could be misleading and incorrect.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaching a child to read in English ... is indoctrination just the same as religion is.

 

What are you, high?

Did you even read his post? His point was that we force certain beliefs and practices on our children, because we believe they're for the best. Religion is no different.

 

What would you do if your child decided he didn't want to learn English? Would you tell him it was okay, and that he didn't have to? I doubt it.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've completely missed the point. Every child is indoctrinated in something, but once they reach the age where they have developed analytical skills, they can choose freely whether or not to believe in it. Teaching a child to read in English and teaching them the history of America is indoctrination just the same as religion is. The only difference is that you've only deemed public education as morally acceptable.

 

what the [bleep]

 

wouldn't think you being a uni student and a historian would say this

 

the biggest difference being american history (and the english language) has been exhaustively documented, discussed and covered -- and is pretty much asserted and based in fact whilst the other party is spinning fictions

And the bible hasn't been exhaustively documented, discussed and covered?

 

It's not the same as academic studies. Christian apologists are dismissive of counter-arguments, whereas academic scholars are accepting of disputes (in their relevant field). It's substantiated by the living proof we have in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh? I'd like to see you post something better. I'm speaking in a general sense, where I'd be correct. I'm not asserting that all of any one group acts that way.

 

If you're talking about studying the Bible as literature, that's not even close to critically analyzing the supernatural claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh? I'd like to see you post something better. I'm speaking in a general sense, where I'd be correct. I'm not asserting that all of any one group acts that way.

 

If you're talking about studying the Bible as literature, that's not even close to critically analyzing the supernatural claims.

There are people who aren't well accepting of critical analysis in every field, not just religion.

 

And I'm talking about studying the bible from a theological, philosophical, historical, literary and scientific perceptive. There have been thousands of studies done on the bible in every discipline.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaching a child to read in English ... is indoctrination just the same as religion is.

 

What are you, high?

Did you even read his post? His point was that we force certain beliefs and practices on our children, because we believe they're for the best. Religion is no different.

 

What would you do if your child decided he didn't want to learn English? Would you tell him it was okay, and that he didn't have to? I doubt it.

 

Teaching someone to read a language that will help you every day of your life is not on the same level as making them learn about your religion.

 

Should I ever have kids, I don't care what language they can read. As long as they understand some form of spoken language. I'd be irritated that I couldn't text them, or that they would have massive hurdles to overcome in society, but it's not like I would even consider forcing them to read in any particular language. Besides, my dad can't even check his messages on his phone or use a computer by himself.

Steam | PM me for BBM PIN

 

Nine naked men is a technological achievement. Quote of 2013.

 

PCGamingWiki - Let's fix PC gaming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Teaching someone to read a language that will help you every day of your life is not on the same level as making them learn about your religion.

 

For a lot of people, religion helps them every day of their life.

 

Should I ever have kids, I don't care what language they can read. As long as they understand some form of spoken language. I'd be irritated that I couldn't text them, or that they would have massive hurdles to overcome in society, but it's not like I would even consider forcing them to read in any particular language. Besides, my dad can't even check his messages on his phone or use a computer by himself.

 

So you'd be completely fine with your child not learning english? Forgive me for being skeptical.

 

And what if your child decided manners didn't apply to them, and refused to say please and thank you? Would you tolerate that because you didn't want to indoctrinate them?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh? I'd like to see you post something better. I'm speaking in a general sense, where I'd be correct. I'm not asserting that all of any one group acts that way.

 

If you're talking about studying the Bible as literature, that's not even close to critically analyzing the supernatural claims.

There are people who aren't well accepting of critical analysis in every field, not just religion.

 

And I'm talking about studying the bible from a theological, philosophical, historical, literary and scientific perceptive. There have been thousands of studies done on the bible in every discipline.

 

You're suggesting that religious indoctrination involves this, which it obviously doesn't by definition.

 

Supernatural claims are different to natural claims, because without critical analysis, it's indistinguishable from superstition. I'm well accepting of those who have religious discussions, who don't teach religion as fact.

 

I'm not sure where the direction of this discussion is heading. What exactly is your position/point on this matter again? What would be the concluding statement that can be drawn from your arguments?

 

EDIT: I like how you're equivocating the term indoctrination now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaching a child to read in English ... is indoctrination just the same as religion is.

 

What are you, high?

Did you even read his post? His point was that we force certain beliefs and practices on our children, because we believe they're for the best. Religion is no different.

 

What would you do if your child decided he didn't want to learn English? Would you tell him it was okay, and that he didn't have to? I doubt it.

 

Teaching someone to read a language that will help you every day of your life is not on the same level as making them learn about your religion.

 

Should I ever have kids, I don't care what language they can read. As long as they understand some form of spoken language. I'd be irritated that I couldn't text them, or that they would have massive hurdles to overcome in society, but it's not like I would even consider forcing them to read in any particular language. Besides, my dad can't even check his messages on his phone or use a computer by himself.

 

So is teaching a child about evolution indoctrination? How about teaching them about Plato, Adam Smith, Art Laffer, Karl Marx's ideas? What about human development and sexuality? Or the political process... is taking your kid to an OWS rally indoctrination? What about a Tea party event? The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Can we even touch the second amendment?

 

What about global warming? Environmentalism? Is that indoctrination?

 

Hell, it's all education. It'll help them in real life, right? Why is one subject taboo and another not?

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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