Ethics and Morality

[Assume Nothing]

I'm digressing, but that argumentation seems flawed. Are you suggesting that deriving happiness/love/pleasure alone is the primary factor of whether something should be deemed morally acceptable?

 

If it doesn't harm others or infringe on other peoples rights, and its not harming you in a way that is going to cost other people money, I generally don't see the harm.

 

 

On a totally different track, this thread has gotten me thinking about something. Discussion is all well and good from a theoretical, and philosophical perspective, in a pursuit to try and define morality, but it has very little relevance to most of the descisions we make, because most of the time, you either don't have the time, or don't take the time, to actually think about it.

 

Most of the time, your decisions are going to be made the same we you pick a product in the grocery store. You subconscious mind will use markers in your memory to quickly go through your entire life experience for everything relevant, tally up the pros and cons using whatever criteria your specific brain uses, and provide the decision to your conscious mind before your even aware your making a choice. This is what happens every time your say, looking at the various penut butters on the shelf, and you just pick one without being aware of thinking about it. This is how most decisions are made. As a point of interest, if you can simplify it down to yes/no conditions, an MRI can tell you what your choice is before you know it yourself. The subconscious does a lot of leading.

 

My actual immediate point, is that for example, I can try to figure out what I base my moral choices on, but it doesn't really work. There is going to be a lot of inconsistencies, because the mechanism being used to analyse myself is not connected to the one that actually makes most of the choices. Someplace in my brain there is hardwired into it, if not the actual rules that my mind uses, the source material that my brain uses every time it makes a choice. I would also suspect that it has made a lot of shortcuts so that it doesn't have to go through the whole process every time, which would mean you can set your own precedents. If you make an exception once, your brain is probably going to use that as the basis for any similar situation in the future, because it requires a lot less work.

 

In our day to day livelihoods, a majority of our decisions are emotionally based - it's simply a cognitive function that has served us best. Rational thought isn't as necessary as a majority of our decisions have very limited ranges of consequences.

 

On the contrary - in ethical dilemmas, or choices which may have significant implications, rational thought is necessary in order to make a morally righteous decisions because a poor decision could be harmful to many parties involved.

[Furah]

And for a lot of people, religion causes them to be killed or tortured in to conversion.

 

I wouldn't care, plain and simple. As for manners, the teaching of it is social etiquette. The point of it is to help us communicate and cooperate as a species. Without it neither you nor I would be alive.

 

So you would force it on your children; that's my point.

 

And I also think you're full of shit, saying you wouldn't care if they didn't want to learn english. In fact, I'd say you'd be an awful parent to allow that. I'm even sure it's illegal in some countries to refuse to have your child educated in the native language...

 

You see, when it comes to what people want to do I usually don't give a shit. Try to infringe on the right of others, though, and I become your worst nightmare. Unfortunately, society legally forces the kids to learn about certain things in certain ways.

 

It's about the way you go about it. If I told my kid that Judaism was the true religion and so he had to follow it that would be indoctrination. If I told them that I would ignore/disown/torture/kill them then that's blackmail. If I told my kid about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, and other major religions and let them decide if they wish to follow any of the religions or none of them, then I am merely teaching them about religion.

 

Sometimes I think you guys are slow.

 

So do you plan to teach your children both conservative and liberal values, both communist and democratic ones, both racist and non-racist ones? Do you plan to read your children Mein Kampf, and tell them how great a leader Hitler was, so they can decide for themselves whether or not to hate Jews?

 

I doubt it.

 

There's one point here: Parents have the right to teach their children and pass down their opinions to them. This happens in practically everything a parent teaches a child.

 

Yes, and in many countries parents not only have a right to teach kids their own religion, they have a legal obligation.

 

It is.

 

Yes, I know; which is why I said that the bible stories are no different than ones in other historical texts.

 

They sure are stories.

[i_love_burritos]

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.

God damnit you guys.

 

How often did you hear this at the elementary level: "Now students, when you go home to do your multiplication tables tonight, make sure you question the fundamental elements of mathematics and why 3x5=15. The same applies for your analysis of Gertrude Chandler Warner's The Boxcar Children."

 

Never. Ever. That is because children have not developed the cognitive abilities to do so and you must know the rules before you can appropriately break them as you see fit. As a child you may be taught to question the teaching abilities or methods of your teacher as I was, but you do not question the basics of English or Math skills. That is my point. I'm not commenting whatsoever on the repercussions of being convinced that God is real for your entire childhood.

 

Yes but your argument is bullshit because (most) christians and sensible people would agree 3x5=15 but only christians would regard jesus as the son of god etc etc

the main fact and difference being

 

muslims,hindus,buddhists, are all taught 3x5=15 and are not told about jesus. secondly i dont think anyone has the cognitive capabilities to break the rule or falsify that 3x5=15 or that c comes after b and b after a.

[Assume Nothing]

 

And for a lot of people, religion causes them to be killed or tortured in to conversion.

 

I wouldn't care, plain and simple. As for manners, the teaching of it is social etiquette. The point of it is to help us communicate and cooperate as a species. Without it neither you nor I would be alive.

 

So you would force it on your children; that's my point.

 

And I also think you're full of shit, saying you wouldn't care if they didn't want to learn english. In fact, I'd say you'd be an awful parent to allow that. I'm even sure it's illegal in some countries to refuse to have your child educated in the native language...

 

It's about the way you go about it. If I told my kid that Judaism was the true religion and so he had to follow it that would be indoctrination. If I told them that I would ignore/disown/torture/kill them then that's blackmail. If I told my kid about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, and other major religions and let them decide if they wish to follow any of the religions or none of them, then I am merely teaching them about religion.

 

Sometimes I think you guys are slow.

 

So do you plan to teach your children both conservative and liberal values, both communist and democratic ones, both racist and non-racist ones? Do you plan to read your children Mein Kampf, and tell them how great a leader Hitler was, so they can decide for themselves whether or not to hate Jews?

 

I doubt it.

 

There's one point here: Parents have the right to teach their children and pass down their opinions to them. This happens in practically everything a parent teaches a child.

 

You're actually under the ill-conceived implicit notion that all opinions are equal, insofar that teaching a child to adopt poorly substantiated ones should be deemed morally permissible? That opinions should be taught as literal, infallible truths when it's blatantly not the case? That children should receive limited exposure to dissenting opinions because you fear they might be dissuaded from the religion/ideology they were coerced into from a tender age?

 

In response to your questions - of course, I'd present both sides of the spectrum to my children when they're at a suitable age to understand and decide for themselves which position is stronger, and thus which position to adopt. I hold no moral qualms against it. What's wrong with a dissenting opinion, if you could simply illustrate why a particular position is more substantiated, thus better to adopt?

 

I find it laughable that you have the audacity to critique my views as though it was an atheistic world view - and you're calling me presumptuous, but I digress. It's funny, though.

 

EDIT - I'll have to check this post for errors tomorrow. 04:43am, I should sleep.

[Jonanananas]

Do you object to a parent forcing their child to go to school, and they aren't able to leave until the age of 18? Just curious.

 

Going to school is extremely important and if you don't do it, it's very likely that your entire life will be quite awful. On top of that, going to school is a legal requirement(at least here), so there's no real comparison here. If you chose a more fitting example, like, say, a sports club, then yes I would object to that as well if they're not able to leave until the age of 18. Of course, when you're child is still young you'll have to put him through some things he may not like and wouldn't do on his own, but once he reaches a certain level of maturity he should have free choice in matters that do not directly affect his future chances of a good life.

[Assume Nothing]

I'm digressing, but that argumentation seems flawed. Are you suggesting that deriving happiness/love/pleasure alone is the primary factor of whether something should be deemed morally acceptable?

 

If it doesn't harm others or infringe on other peoples rights, and its not harming you in a way that is going to cost other people money, I generally don't see the harm.

 

 

Practicing religion goes beyond the miracles and parables of the purported Jesus of Nazareth. It extends to who the adherents should trust, which groups to distrust and ostracize, which political alignment adherents should adopt, which laws should be passed, which parts of the educational curriculum to alter or remove, etc.

 

It's these actions, influenced primarily by religious teachings, that are harmful to not only those outside the clique of religious following, but to themselves too. It may not be realised, but it limits their own happiness and thus it becomes a compromise of religiously derived happiness with happiness from wellbeing and general satisfaction. It does infringe on other people's rights, in many cases. It infringes privacy rights to knock on doors to proselytize those who don't want to. It infringes educational rights to remove sciences from the school curriculum. It infringes our rights when public prayers are held.

 

I see problems even by replacing genuine generosity with generosity in fear of a God, to do so only to appease an 'almighty' being.

 

If practicing religion were like believing in Santa, leprechauns or any other frivolous fairy-tale, then I'd have little contempt for it. The startling truth is, it's weaved into almost every aspect of society where there's no escape from it, and its harmful to not only individuals, but society in a multitude of ways.

 

It's morally impermissible to knowingly allow this to continue, yet it does. Why?

[sees_all1]

I'm digressing, but that argumentation seems flawed. Are you suggesting that deriving happiness/love/pleasure alone is the primary factor of whether something should be deemed morally acceptable?

 

If it doesn't harm others or infringe on other peoples rights, and its not harming you in a way that is going to cost other people money, I generally don't see the harm.

 

 

Practicing religion goes beyond the miracles and parables of the purported Jesus of Nazareth. It extends to who the adherents should trust, which groups to distrust and ostracize, which political alignment adherents should adopt, which laws should be passed, which parts of the educational curriculum to alter or remove, etc.

 

It's these actions, influenced primarily by religious teachings, that are harmful to not only those outside the clique of religious following, but to themselves too. It may not be realised, but it limits their own happiness and thus it becomes a compromise of religiously derived happiness with happiness from wellbeing and general satisfaction. It does infringe on other people's rights, in many cases. It infringes privacy rights to knock on doors to proselytize those who don't want to. It infringes educational rights to remove sciences from the school curriculum. It infringes our rights when public prayers are held.

 

I see problems even by replacing genuine generosity with generosity in fear of a God, to do so only to appease an 'almighty' being.

 

If practicing religion were like believing in Santa, leprechauns or any other frivolous fairy-tale, then I'd have little contempt for it. The startling truth is, it's weaved into almost every aspect of society where there's no escape from it, and its harmful to not only individuals, but society in a multitude of ways.

 

It's morally impermissible to knowingly allow this to continue, yet it does. Why?

tldr;

Skeptic knows better for parents and their children than they do.

[Assume Nothing]

I'm not sure if that's criticism, but okay.

[sees_all1]

I'm not sure if that's criticism, but okay.

Means your position is not only intolerant, but also arrogant.

[Jonanananas]

He does have a point as far fundamentalists are concerned (e.g. teaching creation at school as an alternative to evolution), but once again we shouldn't be talking about fundamentalists here really(Even if they're far too prominent in America which I assume you're from skeptic?)

[Assume Nothing]

I'm not from the US, but I do have my concerns regarding the actions and decisions of those in the US. The socio-political influence is rather profound in the western world.

 

@sees: What's your point? Does that somehow discredit my argument? I take little notice of assertions that have no weight - try padding it out with reasoning of why my argument fails (if that's your position), and we can initiate a discussion. It's going nowhere right now.

[sees_all1]

You don't think parents should teach their children about their beliefs.

I think that makes you arrogant ("I know what's better for your kid than you do").

 

You also think all religion everywhere is detrimental to the world, and that if everyone accepted your "enlightened" view, the world would be a better place. Quite frankly, you're intolerant, and a bigot.

 

 

But whatever, I don't care if you want to be closed minded. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a brick wall.

[Assume Nothing]

You've deliberately misconstrued my positions. Congratulations on the straw man argument.

 

I don't think parents should present their beliefs to be facts - it's still an opinion that requires being substantiated by argument. I don't feel all religion is detrimental to the world, where did you even get that from? The most popular religions certainly have adverse effects, but I like how you're exaggerating it. I've never professed that I'm intellectually superior, either.

 

I like how you're only here to critique me rather than my position. It's laughable how hypocritical you are. On a slightly unrelated note, I like how you assert that I'm somehow closed minded, when you're intolerant to even consider my position to be valid. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

[sees_all1]

You've deliberately misconstrued my positions. Congratulations on the straw man argument.

One sec, lemme see....

 

I don't think parents should present their beliefs to be facts - it's still an opinion that requires being substantiated by argument.

"I know how to raise your kids better than you."

Got it.

 

I don't feel all religion is detrimental to the world, where did you even get that from?

From your next sentence, and about a dozen other posts, that's where I got it.

 

 

I like how you're only here to critique me rather than my position. It's laughable how hypocritical you are. On a slightly unrelated note, I like how you assert that I'm somehow closed minded, when you're intolerant to even consider my position to be valid. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Cool story. Anyhow, have fun debating yourself.

[Assume Nothing]

How do you equate 'parents shouldn't present opinion as fact' to 'I know better than you'? Granted, even if it's true, it bares no weight to discredit my argument at all.

 

You've responded to my post with 'from your next sentence,' so quote me. I'm not doing the back-tracing when you're referring to something obscure that's not even relevant.

 

You're accusing me of bigotry, huh? How very ironic of you. It seems that you're the one who's incapable of even considering my position. Surely, that's the very definition of bigotry/arrogance, is it not?

 

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

 

Your posts are a nice attempt at argument, but it's nothing more than that. It's facile, meaningless diatribe. Do you think these semantic word games really support your position?

 

The only one professing moral supremacy here is yourself. Who's arrogant now?

[Riku3220]

Since this is going around in circles I'm just going to decide on a new topic: The Death Penalty.

 

Personally, I believe that it should be done as quickly and efficiently as possible. After being sentenced to death you get two, and only two appeals to get the sentence changed. A week after the sentencing, the offender will be taken to a room and shot in the head twice. Quick, effective, easy, not at all costly. The family can decide what to do with the body and if the family cannot be contacted or they don't care, the offender will be cremated.

 

I do not find this to be any crueler than the current method of leaving the person in a cell for a number of years only to be strapped into a chair and have a chemical injected into him that makes him fall asleep knowing full well that he'll never wake up afterwards.

[sees_all1]

The death penalty is cruel, and should never be used as a form of punishment.

[Riku3220]

I say that if you take another person's life then you forfeit your own right to life.

[Furah]

I am completely against capital punishment, as it's impossible to guarantee that the person you're executing is guilty. You can release a man who was wrongfully imprisoned. You cannot, however, raise a wrongly executed man from the dead.

[Vezon Dash]

I'd rather be in jail for 10 years, then get the chair as opposed to being in jail for 50 years.

[obfuscator]

I'm also against the death penalty, unless it can be proven that someone cannot be incarcerated in such a way that they are never a threat to anyone else. I've yet to see a scenario where this is the case.

[Randox]

I say that if you take another person's life then you forfeit your own right to life.

The vengeful part of me has no qualms with the idea of capital punishment for 1st degree murder charges. But another part of me has to agree with the problem of proof. Honestly, I think I prefer the idea of a penal colony (I think I once referenced a stargate sg1 episode in which a civilization used a 1 way gate situation to make a penal planet). First degree murder among some other crimes demonstrate to me an inability to function in our civilization, so the idea of forcing the murderers, and other who have demonstrated a total inability to function in society to all live together has some appeal.

 

At the end of the day I'd have to say I don't feel it is our place to determine who gets to live and who gets to die, but we can be all about determining where they live.

[Range_This11]

I say that if you take another person's life then you forfeit your own right to life.

Logic breaker: War.

[Riku3220]

I say that if you take another person's life then you forfeit your own right to life.

Logic breaker: War.

And also the executioner and anyone who decides to pull the plug on a person in a vegetative state. Of course, we're talking about the crime of murder here. The unlawful killing of another human.

[Range_This11]

So then war is ethical since it is not against the law? I can't say I agree with you on that point.