Morality
It seems that all I use this for anymore is to relay conversations that people would rather keep private. So I'm an asshole, what of it? Here's one that started over the redundant bill that would allow for abortions to not use federal dollars. Huff Po.
The first part isn't a very good conversation until MP jumps back in. (She was the original poster.) But I just wanted to show how some people argue and maybe just don't get what they're arguing.
MP: Your Religion has no business near my Government. Oops! Sorry! Meant to say ANY Religion has NO business near ANY Government!
MP: How about, NO Religion has ANY business near ANY Government! Much better.
Me: But from where will we get our moral compass? People can't just make up what's best for everyone as a whole. We need divine mandates and inspiration!
DT: This issue has nothing to do with religion and you don't need religion to have a moral compass. It was religious zealots that spearheaded the end of slavery. Was that moral compass wrong? I believe that the issue rests with which moral compass that we wish to follow as a nation. Demonizing opposing positions demonstrates intellectual indolence.
Me: If it has nothing to do with religion, then why did somebody bother to write "Abort Abortion" on a cross?
DT: Somebody pooped on the sidewalk. By the aforementioned logic, all people poop on the sidewalk.
Me: But WHY did they poop on the sidewalk is the question.
DT: Well, I guess you just got me on that one.LOL
Me: Might I also point out that people who were opposing the abolition of slavery were also religious zealots. It was kind of ubiquitous back then. As for this scenario, I think it's backed and funded by those who support religious ideals. And that's the problem, is that there's no changing their minds because of something people are told to believe rather than thinking things through for themselves.
DT: Many people fully capable of intelligent thought differ on a wide variety of issue. It is simply incorrect to marginalize motivation based on prejudicial information. Based on information contained in the former statement I could logically conclude that the advocate of the prior statement was a puppet of a liberally biased school system. I cannot make that assessment because I do not know the full thoughts or motivations behind individuals thought processes.
Me: Ha! I grew up going to a private Christian school. And had a year of private Christian college. I was just smart enough to think my way out of the brainwashing.
It's true. Some people are capable of compartmentalizing political ideology and rational thought from believing that somebody actually rode across the sky in a fiery chariot where it wasn't actually some metaphor for the sun or a meteor. (Or you pick the miracle: parting waters and starting plagues which wasn't the product of a volcano, resurrection which wasn't just a telling of the seasons, a telling of creation where light came before the sun or stars, walls falling from trumpets and not earthquakes. The list goes on.)
However, when it comes to abortion, could you please find me someone who is pro-choice who doesn't have religious ties? Because true independents or libertarians should respect people's rights and not try to impose laws saying what citizens can or can't do.
But really. You see this picture of such blatant iconography, which is really the single most basic Christian iconographic symbol one would hope to find, and your argument is that you don't know the intent of this single person in regards to why they think the way they do? I'm going with religious reasons. Just a hunch. Other people. Maybe not, but singularly, I think I have this one pegged.
MP: I'm sorry, [DT], but deciding a woman cannot get a life-saving abortion is morally wrong to me. There is a strong case for religion being affiliated with anti-abortion causes. By enacting legislation barring women from getting an abortion because another person's religious beliefs do not support it is forcing their religion on others. No one is making anyone get that abortion. Yet by creating such laws those who are against abortion are furthering their religious agenda.
MP: I'm sorry, Don, but deciding a woman cannot get a life-saving abortion is morally wrong to me. There is a strong case for religion being affiliated with anti-abortion causes. By enacting legislation barring women from getting an abortion because another person's religious beliefs do not support it is forcing their religion on others. No one is making anyone get that abortion. Yet by creating such laws those who are against abortion are furthering their religious agenda.
MP: However, I appreciate your position. And your words give depth to your argument. ♥
Me: That's a bit more diplomatic way of saying it. I kinda ran with it a bit too much. Sorry about that.
DT: I appreciate your position and I agree in some aspects of it. Thanks
MP: You crazy ranter, Travis! Ha ha ha!
____________
So then I get a random message from DT, where the only thing looking at me is this link. Then more conversation ensues.
DT: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Morality
Me: I have had professors tell me that one should never end a paragraph with a quote becuase the point of the quote is for one to expound on it. So if you have anything that you need me to understand about your link, you should likely direct my attention to it. Otherwise, I don't have the attention span for this.
DT: No. I thought there might be a misunderstanding of the word morality. I looked it up and thought I would share it with you. I then thought, as your professor thought, that it would lead to other discussion and probably misunderstanding so I deleted the link. If you are a friend of [MP], you are probably a fine person. There may be a time in the future that we could meet. Thanks for the discussion.
Me: Well. Morality is, as the link says, a code of conduct. And I think the Bible did a good job in the past with helping people understand how they should live their lives. And what better way to do it than to actually put the fear of God into someone to believe that they're always being watched no matter what situation they find themselves in. The concept isn't novel. The Egyptians did this too. The difference was that they also deified their leaders, which made it even harder to want to overthrow them. Now people are just intrinsically tied to their religion and as much as (religious) people hate to admit it, it deeply influences their votes. They think that if somebody else with a different set of moral ideals gets into office, that the entire country will go to hell in a handbasket.
But see. Today we have a set of laws. And granted, they may have been founded on the Christian religion, but really, when you think about it, is "Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal." etc, really something that any other religion or culture hasn't or wouldn't come up with? The idea is to try to be fair to every individual, giving them a choice on how to live their lives as long as their actions, thoughts, or motives don't actually harm others in too grotesque of a manner. And I suppose that definition leaves a bit of a gray area, but that's why every situation where somebody feels they have been wronged, can get analyzed by our law system.
I mean the oldest known written rules in the world were the Code of Hammurabi and they just went through a list of what would happen in any given scenario -- "Your neighbor borrowed your donkey and they broke its tail. They owe you 50 (monetary units)." But basic notions of morality is pretty easy. The golden rule is a fairly simple concept, and whether or not it came out of Christianity or Jesus' mouth is now a moot point. I mean, somebody always has to say it first, but isn't that something that most anybody would come up with as an answer for how to best treat your fellow human being? You don't need an entire cosmology behind "Do unto others..."
In that sense I think religion is obsolete. However, where I think religion is good, is for those who need hope and community solidarity. If somebody needs something to look forward to to get themselves in a better place in life mentally and psychologically, then go for it. But basically I see religion as a means to get people to do something that they may not otherwise do. For instance, I am not a military man. I almost put myself into the Navy straight out of high school to follow my dad's and both grandfathers' footsteps but then thought better of it. But then I hear how you make more money if you're married. Well. OK, two people need two incomes, right? But also. Wouldn't the military want their soldiers to have something to fight for? I mean country, fine. That abstract ideal of making everyone back at home safe (even if the war is total BS). But to have a person to fight for. That'll give some motivation and drive to make it back.
Religion is psychological manipulation. It allows the powerful to control the masses with the enticement that there's something better on down the line, even if it has to come after death. (How cold is that?)
So as for whether or not I understand morality. I think I've got it. Promoters of religion, however, with all the wars it's started, all the deaths that it's caused, with all the hatred it has spurred for those who don't believe the same way, I don't think those people are very moral at all.
I mean. Believe what you want. I'm just saying how I feel. So maybe you can see where I'm coming from with that short discussion we had there.
DT: Well, my position is a little more simplistic. Morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. A moral norm in San Francisco is probably different than a moral norm in Waco, Tx. In order for a society to function there must be a set of moral values accepted by that society. Morality is not a concept of religion, it is a concept of people. If people use religion to frame a moral standard, then that is what they did. The words of Jesus are clear on this. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself and you have fulfilled all of the scriptures. God's moral code deals with us as individuals not with establishing societal norms.
Me: Well, I suppose morality starts from the ground up. Meaning it's based on an individual's feelings on the subject matter. But then what is acceptable in a larger society is probably largely based on the history and tradition of that locality.
For instance. I'm a west coaster. I grew up in LA then moved to Seattle in Jr. High, went through college there and then moved up to Alaska for graduate school, which is where I met [MP]. However, last year I moved to the east coast -- North Carolina -- and let me tell you how much of a culture shock that is. Some people still car about Northern Aggression and have a bit of bigotry that seems normal for people in their everyday lives, so when they interact, it seems to go largely unnoticed, except for maybe me, as the outsider.
But I suppose my point in that is that the culture that came over from Europe that created this Southern Culture today, was founded in Christianity. Is there any denying that? New aspects, such as control over other people and their subjugation became another matter to deal with, and the people adapted as the times saw fit. People then moved west and got over that, as most black people were basically forced to stay put, and maybe other tensions, with Hispanics arose in the west.
The point in all this? Of course the people are going to act differently in different locations. They're living with their specific history and tradition. But whether that dictates a personal set of morals, well, it may mold them, but every person can have their own modified version. So where once governments were (and I suppose still are) founded in the idea that some greater power decides how one should act, it makes it a lot easier to operate, when fear guides people's lives.
So I'm not quite sure where the argument is here. I think our society used Christianity to form its set of morals, as do you. The only difference here, I believe, is that you believe in that God where I believe that the concept of a god was just a means of gaining control by those who knew better.
Now that doesn't mean that people who don't "know" God can't have their own set of morals founded in the concepts of someone known as Jesus, as I believe these are rather universal ideas of how people should treat one another. And I think that with few exceptions are there other cultures that see these moral codes to differ in such dramatic ways. I suppose it just depends on the level of "society" one is living in. In a larger society, people have to interact more often and are forced to live according to more defined rules on how to interact, whereas those with more space and land can opt to be more reclusive and not have to worry about sharing or caring about anyone else. And the fear of them encroaching is what drives this fear of people who are different than you because you don't know their moral standards.
I suppose this is why we have a polarization in this country as far as where population densities are concerned.
Me: My point: You can make anything up if you have no proof and you can attempt to make it truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jJ-ttrSd8&feature=player_embedded
DT: Well, that is the nice thing about God. He gives us the ability to make choices. In this life you will make yours and I will make mine. We will both make good choices and sometimes bad. Our choices and the results of those choices belong to us.
Thanks for the discussion
Me: OR. You just say that something gives you the ability to do whatever you want when in fact you just happen to have rule over your own life. Using God as the means for how you live your life is just introducing an unnecessary variable. It's just the point of the video -- that any figment of one's imagination can make us believe it has some influence over our lives. It may end up that psychologically it goes that way if you allow it to, or one might get scared into doing it, but otherwise, it's not really not real.
You're basically putting an unnecessary force behind a naturally-explained action. The Romans used to deify everything in nature (numen) -- winds, trees, oceans, etc. -- and I guess Christians consolidate that into a single deity, which is nice, but really? Can't the world (with science) now be explained by its natural processes? God was a way of once explaining the world when it couldn't otherwise be explained. But for example, does fire really require: Fuel + Oxygen + Excited Electrons + God? Or do you think maybe one of those variables could be excluded?
But yes, we do make our own choices. And those choices are based solely on what we feel best suits our needs. God has nothing to do with it. This is why societies all have their own ways of looking at life. Because there isn't a singular deity telling everyone how they should live their lives.
DT: God does not tell you how to run your life or what to believe. It is all your choice. It is true that you do not need to believe in God to love your neighbor or have a good and productive life. You believe in the concepts that sustain you. I believe in the concepts that sustain me. I will respect your right to your belief system. Please respect my right to believe as I wish.
Me: You can do whatever you'd like. I just see a belief in a deity as limiting, unnecessary, and often times a means to allow one to not think for themselves (see original post by [MP]). I'm just explaining my point of view, because, if I remember correctly, you started this conversation and also said that you didn't know my individual beliefs.
DT: Great, thanks
Me: No problem. Now you know.
_________
As can be seen, I'm pretty sure he's done with the conversation. I kind of wish someone ever had the ability to respond to this without circular reasoning. I guess I wouldn't really have much to say other than what I've already iterated as well.
The first part isn't a very good conversation until MP jumps back in. (She was the original poster.) But I just wanted to show how some people argue and maybe just don't get what they're arguing.
MP: Your Religion has no business near my Government. Oops! Sorry! Meant to say ANY Religion has NO business near ANY Government!
MP: How about, NO Religion has ANY business near ANY Government! Much better.
Me: But from where will we get our moral compass? People can't just make up what's best for everyone as a whole. We need divine mandates and inspiration!
DT: This issue has nothing to do with religion and you don't need religion to have a moral compass. It was religious zealots that spearheaded the end of slavery. Was that moral compass wrong? I believe that the issue rests with which moral compass that we wish to follow as a nation. Demonizing opposing positions demonstrates intellectual indolence.
Me: If it has nothing to do with religion, then why did somebody bother to write "Abort Abortion" on a cross?
DT: Somebody pooped on the sidewalk. By the aforementioned logic, all people poop on the sidewalk.
Me: But WHY did they poop on the sidewalk is the question.
DT: Well, I guess you just got me on that one.LOL
Me: Might I also point out that people who were opposing the abolition of slavery were also religious zealots. It was kind of ubiquitous back then. As for this scenario, I think it's backed and funded by those who support religious ideals. And that's the problem, is that there's no changing their minds because of something people are told to believe rather than thinking things through for themselves.
DT: Many people fully capable of intelligent thought differ on a wide variety of issue. It is simply incorrect to marginalize motivation based on prejudicial information. Based on information contained in the former statement I could logically conclude that the advocate of the prior statement was a puppet of a liberally biased school system. I cannot make that assessment because I do not know the full thoughts or motivations behind individuals thought processes.
Me: Ha! I grew up going to a private Christian school. And had a year of private Christian college. I was just smart enough to think my way out of the brainwashing.
It's true. Some people are capable of compartmentalizing political ideology and rational thought from believing that somebody actually rode across the sky in a fiery chariot where it wasn't actually some metaphor for the sun or a meteor. (Or you pick the miracle: parting waters and starting plagues which wasn't the product of a volcano, resurrection which wasn't just a telling of the seasons, a telling of creation where light came before the sun or stars, walls falling from trumpets and not earthquakes. The list goes on.)
However, when it comes to abortion, could you please find me someone who is pro-choice who doesn't have religious ties? Because true independents or libertarians should respect people's rights and not try to impose laws saying what citizens can or can't do.
But really. You see this picture of such blatant iconography, which is really the single most basic Christian iconographic symbol one would hope to find, and your argument is that you don't know the intent of this single person in regards to why they think the way they do? I'm going with religious reasons. Just a hunch. Other people. Maybe not, but singularly, I think I have this one pegged.
MP: I'm sorry, [DT], but deciding a woman cannot get a life-saving abortion is morally wrong to me. There is a strong case for religion being affiliated with anti-abortion causes. By enacting legislation barring women from getting an abortion because another person's religious beliefs do not support it is forcing their religion on others. No one is making anyone get that abortion. Yet by creating such laws those who are against abortion are furthering their religious agenda.
MP: I'm sorry, Don, but deciding a woman cannot get a life-saving abortion is morally wrong to me. There is a strong case for religion being affiliated with anti-abortion causes. By enacting legislation barring women from getting an abortion because another person's religious beliefs do not support it is forcing their religion on others. No one is making anyone get that abortion. Yet by creating such laws those who are against abortion are furthering their religious agenda.
MP: However, I appreciate your position. And your words give depth to your argument. ♥
Me: That's a bit more diplomatic way of saying it. I kinda ran with it a bit too much. Sorry about that.
DT: I appreciate your position and I agree in some aspects of it. Thanks
MP: You crazy ranter, Travis! Ha ha ha!
____________
So then I get a random message from DT, where the only thing looking at me is this link. Then more conversation ensues.
DT: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Morality
Me: I have had professors tell me that one should never end a paragraph with a quote becuase the point of the quote is for one to expound on it. So if you have anything that you need me to understand about your link, you should likely direct my attention to it. Otherwise, I don't have the attention span for this.
DT: No. I thought there might be a misunderstanding of the word morality. I looked it up and thought I would share it with you. I then thought, as your professor thought, that it would lead to other discussion and probably misunderstanding so I deleted the link. If you are a friend of [MP], you are probably a fine person. There may be a time in the future that we could meet. Thanks for the discussion.
Me: Well. Morality is, as the link says, a code of conduct. And I think the Bible did a good job in the past with helping people understand how they should live their lives. And what better way to do it than to actually put the fear of God into someone to believe that they're always being watched no matter what situation they find themselves in. The concept isn't novel. The Egyptians did this too. The difference was that they also deified their leaders, which made it even harder to want to overthrow them. Now people are just intrinsically tied to their religion and as much as (religious) people hate to admit it, it deeply influences their votes. They think that if somebody else with a different set of moral ideals gets into office, that the entire country will go to hell in a handbasket.
But see. Today we have a set of laws. And granted, they may have been founded on the Christian religion, but really, when you think about it, is "Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal." etc, really something that any other religion or culture hasn't or wouldn't come up with? The idea is to try to be fair to every individual, giving them a choice on how to live their lives as long as their actions, thoughts, or motives don't actually harm others in too grotesque of a manner. And I suppose that definition leaves a bit of a gray area, but that's why every situation where somebody feels they have been wronged, can get analyzed by our law system.
I mean the oldest known written rules in the world were the Code of Hammurabi and they just went through a list of what would happen in any given scenario -- "Your neighbor borrowed your donkey and they broke its tail. They owe you 50 (monetary units)." But basic notions of morality is pretty easy. The golden rule is a fairly simple concept, and whether or not it came out of Christianity or Jesus' mouth is now a moot point. I mean, somebody always has to say it first, but isn't that something that most anybody would come up with as an answer for how to best treat your fellow human being? You don't need an entire cosmology behind "Do unto others..."
In that sense I think religion is obsolete. However, where I think religion is good, is for those who need hope and community solidarity. If somebody needs something to look forward to to get themselves in a better place in life mentally and psychologically, then go for it. But basically I see religion as a means to get people to do something that they may not otherwise do. For instance, I am not a military man. I almost put myself into the Navy straight out of high school to follow my dad's and both grandfathers' footsteps but then thought better of it. But then I hear how you make more money if you're married. Well. OK, two people need two incomes, right? But also. Wouldn't the military want their soldiers to have something to fight for? I mean country, fine. That abstract ideal of making everyone back at home safe (even if the war is total BS). But to have a person to fight for. That'll give some motivation and drive to make it back.
Religion is psychological manipulation. It allows the powerful to control the masses with the enticement that there's something better on down the line, even if it has to come after death. (How cold is that?)
So as for whether or not I understand morality. I think I've got it. Promoters of religion, however, with all the wars it's started, all the deaths that it's caused, with all the hatred it has spurred for those who don't believe the same way, I don't think those people are very moral at all.
I mean. Believe what you want. I'm just saying how I feel. So maybe you can see where I'm coming from with that short discussion we had there.
DT: Well, my position is a little more simplistic. Morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. A moral norm in San Francisco is probably different than a moral norm in Waco, Tx. In order for a society to function there must be a set of moral values accepted by that society. Morality is not a concept of religion, it is a concept of people. If people use religion to frame a moral standard, then that is what they did. The words of Jesus are clear on this. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself and you have fulfilled all of the scriptures. God's moral code deals with us as individuals not with establishing societal norms.
Me: Well, I suppose morality starts from the ground up. Meaning it's based on an individual's feelings on the subject matter. But then what is acceptable in a larger society is probably largely based on the history and tradition of that locality.
For instance. I'm a west coaster. I grew up in LA then moved to Seattle in Jr. High, went through college there and then moved up to Alaska for graduate school, which is where I met [MP]. However, last year I moved to the east coast -- North Carolina -- and let me tell you how much of a culture shock that is. Some people still car about Northern Aggression and have a bit of bigotry that seems normal for people in their everyday lives, so when they interact, it seems to go largely unnoticed, except for maybe me, as the outsider.
But I suppose my point in that is that the culture that came over from Europe that created this Southern Culture today, was founded in Christianity. Is there any denying that? New aspects, such as control over other people and their subjugation became another matter to deal with, and the people adapted as the times saw fit. People then moved west and got over that, as most black people were basically forced to stay put, and maybe other tensions, with Hispanics arose in the west.
The point in all this? Of course the people are going to act differently in different locations. They're living with their specific history and tradition. But whether that dictates a personal set of morals, well, it may mold them, but every person can have their own modified version. So where once governments were (and I suppose still are) founded in the idea that some greater power decides how one should act, it makes it a lot easier to operate, when fear guides people's lives.
So I'm not quite sure where the argument is here. I think our society used Christianity to form its set of morals, as do you. The only difference here, I believe, is that you believe in that God where I believe that the concept of a god was just a means of gaining control by those who knew better.
Now that doesn't mean that people who don't "know" God can't have their own set of morals founded in the concepts of someone known as Jesus, as I believe these are rather universal ideas of how people should treat one another. And I think that with few exceptions are there other cultures that see these moral codes to differ in such dramatic ways. I suppose it just depends on the level of "society" one is living in. In a larger society, people have to interact more often and are forced to live according to more defined rules on how to interact, whereas those with more space and land can opt to be more reclusive and not have to worry about sharing or caring about anyone else. And the fear of them encroaching is what drives this fear of people who are different than you because you don't know their moral standards.
I suppose this is why we have a polarization in this country as far as where population densities are concerned.
Me: My point: You can make anything up if you have no proof and you can attempt to make it truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jJ-ttrSd8&feature=player_embedded
DT: Well, that is the nice thing about God. He gives us the ability to make choices. In this life you will make yours and I will make mine. We will both make good choices and sometimes bad. Our choices and the results of those choices belong to us.
Thanks for the discussion
Me: OR. You just say that something gives you the ability to do whatever you want when in fact you just happen to have rule over your own life. Using God as the means for how you live your life is just introducing an unnecessary variable. It's just the point of the video -- that any figment of one's imagination can make us believe it has some influence over our lives. It may end up that psychologically it goes that way if you allow it to, or one might get scared into doing it, but otherwise, it's not really not real.
You're basically putting an unnecessary force behind a naturally-explained action. The Romans used to deify everything in nature (numen) -- winds, trees, oceans, etc. -- and I guess Christians consolidate that into a single deity, which is nice, but really? Can't the world (with science) now be explained by its natural processes? God was a way of once explaining the world when it couldn't otherwise be explained. But for example, does fire really require: Fuel + Oxygen + Excited Electrons + God? Or do you think maybe one of those variables could be excluded?
But yes, we do make our own choices. And those choices are based solely on what we feel best suits our needs. God has nothing to do with it. This is why societies all have their own ways of looking at life. Because there isn't a singular deity telling everyone how they should live their lives.
DT: God does not tell you how to run your life or what to believe. It is all your choice. It is true that you do not need to believe in God to love your neighbor or have a good and productive life. You believe in the concepts that sustain you. I believe in the concepts that sustain me. I will respect your right to your belief system. Please respect my right to believe as I wish.
Me: You can do whatever you'd like. I just see a belief in a deity as limiting, unnecessary, and often times a means to allow one to not think for themselves (see original post by [MP]). I'm just explaining my point of view, because, if I remember correctly, you started this conversation and also said that you didn't know my individual beliefs.
DT: Great, thanks
Me: No problem. Now you know.
_________
As can be seen, I'm pretty sure he's done with the conversation. I kind of wish someone ever had the ability to respond to this without circular reasoning. I guess I wouldn't really have much to say other than what I've already iterated as well.
Labels: abortion, church and state, manipulation, morality, religion
