Plan B Forum

The most moral are people with no religion, liberals, and liberal democrats; groups with a lot of overlap.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... justified/




Among the least moral are conservative Protestants and Catholics.


yrs,
rubato

they must not have polled the people at our church.

you are a hateful man rubato

a poll, by telephone, of 1000 people can hardly be accurate or get a true picture of anything. what s our population now? over 300,000,000 anyway, right?

rubato raises what is, to me, a very important issue. To whit, what is "moral" - from whence does this notion of morality arise? It's a question that people on this board consistently refuse to answer.

There are those who believe that morality is in fact God-derived. Such persons who may be defined as Christians in this survey of rubato's are (I would say) showing moral failure in approving of torture. It is inconsistent with God's revealed will in the Bible - it is inconsistent with Christ. While it is debatable that approval of an immoral act is itself "non-moral", to that extent, I agree with rubato's overly-simplistic, "Among the least moral are conservative Protestants and Catholics." So much for that grouping.

My interest is in the corollary that rubato seeks to put forward - that the non-religious are more "moral" in condemning torture. Of course, I agree (as one who believes morality is God-given) that such a position is more moral. What surprises me is that rubato believes if too.

If morality is not God-given but is a human construct, then those supporting torture are neither more nor less "moral" than those who oppose its use. All are humans and are entitled to define morality as they wish. Or is it to be argued that a majority of humans decide what is moral?

If so, should we not determine if the "conservative Protestants and Catholics" are in the majority and that therefore their support of torture is more moral than rubato's?

If on the other hand, morality is not to be determined by a majority but by a minority, then are we justified in determining whether the "conservative Protestants and Catholics" are in fact a minority and therefore entitled to decree that torture is "moral"?

I contend that if morality is not God-given, then the issue of torture ceases to be a moral issue at all and merely becomes one of taste - an aesthetic value such as beauty, the choice of a favorite baseball team, and any other personal choice that comes to mind.

Morality (by the standard asserted in the op) merely consists of what "I" happen to approve of.

There will be no substantively clear response to this post of mine because all those who believe morality is not God-given also have a terrible fear of asserting that morality is a mere human construct and has no absolute meaning or value whatsoever. No one (on that side of the fence) wants to admit that it is purely subjective and situational. In the end, "I don't know what morality is but I know it when I see it" is the sum of their argument.

Or so I believe until shown to be wrong

what a bunch of gobbledygook. anyone can be moral. and any society can determine its own morals. I can t quote you chapter and verse, but even the new testament says that there can be people who don t know Christ, but never the less live a moral life.

The silence is deafening.

There will be no substantively clear response to this post of mine because all those who believe morality is not God-given also have a terrible fear of asserting that morality is a mere human construct and has no absolute meaning or value whatsoever

MajGenl.Meade wrote:The silence is deafening.

There will be no substantively clear response to this post of mine because all those who believe morality is not God-given also have a terrible fear of asserting that morality is a mere human construct and has no absolute meaning or value whatsoever

It's so quiet because it's late, and I've got some big projects to finish this week, but I'll try to address this if/as I can tomorrow &c.

I'll rely on the words of Pope Francis, who recently said a person doesn't need to believe in God to be a good person who lives a good life and does good works (and can even be redeemed before God for doing so).

Interesting...White Catholics are almost as strongly pro-torture as white evangelical Protestants.

And yet...

US Bishops say torture a betrayal of nation's values

(Vatican Radio) The chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee for International Justice and Peace, Bishop Oscar Cantu of Las Cruces, New Mexico, says that the behavior detailed in a report commissioned by the US Senate on the intelligence-gathering techniques and policies of the Central Intelligence Agency constitutes a violation of basic moral principles and a betrayal of the American commitment to being a moral nation.

In an exclusive interview with Vatican Radio, Bishop Cantu said, “We have placed ourselves through our history as a beacon of hope, a beacon of reason, of freedom: and so, this recent chapter in our history has tarnished that.” He went on to say, “It is not something that can be easily regained, but I think that the publishing of this report begins the cleaning up of that tarnishing of our reputation as a nation that is on sound moral footing.”

The statements of Bishop Cantu to Vatican Radio follow the USCCB’s statement in support of the release of the report earlier this week, and renewing the Church’s condemnation of torture as intrinsically evil.
Writing for the bishops, , says, “The Catholic Church firmly believes that torture is an ‘intrinsic evil’ that cannot be justified under any circumstance.” Bishop Cantu goes on to say, “The acts of torture described in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report violated the God-given human dignity inherent in all people and were unequivocally wrong.”

“Congress and the president,” the statement continues, “should act to strengthen the legal prohibitions against torture and to ensure that this never happens again.”

Heh...say what you will, the Roman Catholic Church *DOES* know a thing or two about torture.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:The silence is deafening.

There will be no substantively clear response to this post of mine because all those who believe morality is not God-given also have a terrible fear of asserting that morality is a mere human construct and has no absolute meaning or value whatsoever

Unlike you and Gob, many of us work for a living, and its a busy time of year, trying to wrap things up before the holiday breaks, plus there are about a million social events to attend, and it was the first night of Hannukah.

I'm not afraid of anything, least of all your arguments on this board. So there.

Frankly, what was most disturbing about rubato's post wasn't his baiting, but the notion that of all "groups" even in those that oppose torture "the most" a full 38% of them feel torture is sometimes or often justified. Wow.

Do you think there are some "overlapping" categories in that chart that just might skew some of the numbers? I fit multiple categories. If they called me and asked what my category is and I answer with all that I think pertain to me, would I get put in all of those categories, or just one? Seems a pretty big mish-mosh of a survey.


MGM, interesting thoughts. When I was in college we used to sit around on friday nights smoking pot debating such subjects. Simply put, is morality a construct of God or is it a construct of man? (if this is wrong or too simplistic let me know).
I have no clue. I use the a lot of the "belly barometer" (bb) to let me know if what I am doing is right (moral?) or wrong. Did I get this bb from upbringing or did was it placed in me by a higher power? Again, I don't know.
I seem to know what's right and wrong, but in any given circumstance that I mey say it is right, someone else may deem it wrong.
Interesting thoughts. Let me go smoke a "fatty" and I'll get back to you.

Well maybe religion doesn't MAKE them more immoral it is just more attractive to those who are already immoral.


yrs,
rubato

Guinevere wrote:Frankly, what was most disturbing about rubato's post wasn't his baiting, but the notion that of all "groups" even in those that oppose torture "the most" a full 38% of them feel torture is sometimes or often justified. Wow.

I agree. That was the most disturbing thing about it. Ones takes for granted that certain things are abhorrent on the face of it to the average person but perhaps there is less to any inherent sense of morality and it is all learned behavior. If you and i had not been brought up in educated liberal families and communities perhaps we would be indifferent to torture as well. There but for the grace of, well, good luck, could go you or I.


It was meant as baiting but it is still true that this is powerful empirical evidence that a grounding in religion only transmits selected elements of morality. There is a lot which teaches social acceptance of cruelty and sadism in religion.

A grounding in moral philosophy combined with a childhood free of cruelty is better.


yrs,
rubato

MajGenl.Meade wrote:rubato raises what is, to me, a very important issue. To whit, what is "moral" - from whence does this notion of morality arise? It's a question that people on this board consistently refuse to answer.

There are those who believe that morality is in fact God-derived. Such persons who may be defined as Christians in this survey of rubato's are (I would say) showing moral failure in approving of torture. It is inconsistent with God's revealed will in the Bible - it is inconsistent with Christ. While it is debatable that approval of an immoral act is itself "non-moral", to that extent, I agree with rubato's overly-simplistic, "Among the least moral are conservative Protestants and Catholics." So much for that grouping.
....
There will be no substantively clear response to this post of mine because all those who believe morality is not God-given also have a terrible fear of asserting that morality is a mere human construct and has no absolute meaning or value whatsoever. No one (on that side of the fence) wants to admit that it is purely subjective and situational. In the end, "I don't know what morality is but I know it when I see it" is the sum of their argument.

Or so I believe until shown to be wrong

We can prove for certain that morality does not come from god via religion by simply examining the behavior of cultures which embrace certain religions, the members of those cultures who are religious adherents, and the behavior of those who make up the body of the church itself.

If there were a single god and if that god did transmit an understanding of morality via her/his church then adherents of that religion and that church's heirarchy would better exemplify moral behavior. But when we look at the actual history for the most part members of a church and the priests, ministers, popes, &c are no better than the world around them and often a great deal worse. QED

The idea of morality is a human construct which comes from the need to reify our understanding of obligations and rights. It is 'merely' human just like relativity and the law of definite proportions are merely human. True everywhere and always. Unlike transubstantiation which appears only to work in Catholic households.

yrs,
rubato

This was written before rubato's response to which I will respond after studying it

bigskygal wrote:I'll rely on the words of Pope Francis, who recently said a person doesn't need to believe in God to be a good person who lives a good life and does good works (and can even be redeemed before God for doing so).

And that's what I said too:

My interest is in the corollary that rubato seeks to put forward - that the non-religious are more "moral" in condemning torture. Of course, I agree (as one who believes morality is God-given) that such a position is more moral

That para indicates that the non-believer's opposition to torture is, I agree, 'more moral' than supporting torture.

I would never say that non-religious people cannot make morally correct decisions. Anyone who thinks I believe that is an illiterate fool (which bsg is not ).

rubato (and econo) again put their finger on a problem. On what ground does rubato positively claim that HIS morality is better than anyone else's? He seems to assert a grounding in moral philosophy - which is rather like expecting agreement among economists - as if the parents of USians sit around discussing hmm... Nietzsche? Calvin and Hobbes? Russell? Locke? Descartes? William of Occam? Mill? Bentham?

rubato says

"Ones (sic) takes for granted that certain things are abhorrent on the face of it to the average person but perhaps there is less to any inherent sense of morality and it is all learned behavior"

That conforms to my

In the end, "I don't know what morality is but I know it when I see it" is the sum of their argument

If that is so, then rubato has no better claim to being moral in his opposition to torture than do the people who support it. (Again, to make it clear, I believe his opposition IS the morally correct case. But that's because I believe 'moral' is both immanent and transcendent vis-à-vis human opinion or learned behavior).

A similar survey, adjusted to the times, conducted in 1890, 1914, 1930 and 1942 would be very illuminating. It might show that the decline in religious belief produces increasing moral failure even amongst those claiming to be religious.

Why, even this study could be interpreted to suggest that unbelievers or liberals or rubato actually understand the tenets of religious (in this case, Christian) belief better than its own practitioners - and therefore Christianity should be taught in public schools to correct the problem

Once again, the issue of the OP depends upon the answer to the question, is one position more moral than another and on what basis is that so?

MajGenl.Meade wrote:.....

A similar survey, adjusted to the times, conducted in 1890, 1914, 1930 and 1942 would be very illuminating. It might show that the decline in religious belief produces increasing moral failure even amongst those claiming to be religious.

....

What it DOES show is a reduction in the level of cruelty in society, longer lives, greater security in their home, higher levels of education. The improvement in society has followed so exactly the reduction in the power of religion that it is difficult to believe that causation is not involved.

ON the whole people have become better after ditching religion.


yrs,
rubato

Meade--IMHO one need not believe in the existence of a creator to believe there are certain laws that exist; we are fully aware that there are many natural laws which govern how the world works. Why is it impossible to believe that natural laws exist as to morality, that human behaviors and relationships are governed by certain natural laws and when they are violated consequences result. Believing this requires no creator (although it could include one for those who do believe in one) anymore than believing in gravity requires a creator; the laws are inherent parts of the entire fabric of the universe.

Such laws are readily recognizable and subject to experimentation and testing (as well as observation); they are not the product of any human whim. One need not look too deep to see that most societies do accept the concept of universal human rights, and eventually come around to recognizing and protecting them, although many times individuals in power will ignore them to their own ends (with predictable consequences). Sure there are differences in how some societies comprehend the universal moral laws, but then there are differences in understanding of natural laws as well; enlightenment and understanding does not come quickly or easily, but it does eventually arrive. But until it does, we rely on our imperfect human understandings of the actual truth.

rubato--

If there were a single god and if that god did transmit an understanding of morality via her/his church then adherents of that religion and that church's heirarchy would better exemplify moral behavior. But when we look at the actual history for the most part members of a church and the priests, ministers, popes, &c are no better than the world around them and often a great deal worse.

I don't understand why you believe that; indeed, human behavior often shows that those in power will pervert the laws to their own ends; this is true for the religious and nonreligious leaders alike. It is silly to believe that religious leaders would act any more moral than others, opportunists abound.

Your arguments claiming to prove with “certainty” (ha ha) are without validity. I shall not discuss those because it distracts from the central issue. I will however congratulate you on the effortless gliding from ‘religious’ to ‘church’ and back as if those two were synonymous. Sneaky but clever.

rubato wrote: The idea of morality is a human construct which comes from the need to reify our understanding of obligations and rights. It is 'merely' human just like relativity and the law of definite proportions are merely human. True everywhere and always.

A nice sidestep and applause on trying to equate “morality” with science and mathematics. First, prove the universality of “obligations” and “rights” (I agree of course, since they are God-given). You however should be able to do that without God but with “certainty” after all. Some smart chaps or other said something about people being endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights… perhaps that’s a start?

Perhaps more significantly (perhaps not), leaving aside non-existent analogies with science and math, you have confirmed your belief that morality is a human construct. If so, on what basis does one group of humans declare what is and is not moral? Is the ground ‘majority’? if not, what is?

Unlike transubstantiation which appears only to work in Catholic households

That’s pretty funny!

You however should be able to do that without God but with “certainty” after all. Some smart chaps or other said something about people being endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights… perhaps that’s a start?

Meade--while you're addressing rubato (who can well fend for himself and answer your comments), I wanted to say that we know very little with certainty in terms of the ultimate truth. We understand the consequences of some scientific principles and have constructed models to explain them, but these are constructs and not the ultimate truths. So we proceeded from classical to relativistic physics to the current state of our understanding, and we will continue to do so, but nothing is known with "certainty" in that we understand the exact laws and the way something works.

If that is the case for physical processes, why would the moral laws be any different. why should we know them with any certainty; like inn they physical sciences, we are continually discovering them. We have a basic framework that we can work from, but are still learning and discovering. Indeed, those who believe in the existence of a god are on the same path, and religious views have changed as to what is moral over the years as we discovered and understood better. That some 18th century thinkers chose to characterize the law as being inalienable the creator endowed all humans with is a good example; in the late 18th century those men (or at least many of them) clearly did not believe all humans had these rights or they could not have countenanced slavery where the slaves did not have those rights even though they were "men", e.g. Such a view was considered entirely moral by most persons (although there were vehement dissents) then, it would not be so today.