Trump is a symptom of the attack on the religious right.
I doubt that most of the religious right (by which I mean the voting population) care when a scientist calls a particle the "God particle", or publishes a paper or essay that denounces religion. The Religious Right consider things like Same-Sex marriage as an assault. Which is depressing, since it's really just letting people be equal.
Don't think for a minute that your typical anti-war, anti-police, throw yourself in front of a bulldozer type liberals would have any chance against the religious right if they got truly fired up. I'm not a fundamentalist but many in my family are. They think this fight is a war for their souls and believe in life after death. Truly. Forcing the short path instead of the long road will be liberalism's undoing if they're not careful...
I also dont buy this at all. When things come down to it, there will be no difference. Doesnt matter is more guns are owned by the right than left (true), or that there are more self identified liberals in the country than conservatives (also true). There is no reckoning.
I truly hope you're right. I myself am not so sure. How many people on the far right do you know?
My sister truly belives in Pizzagate and my parent's believe absolutely nothing bad about Trump and they all believe that George Soros is one of the Illuminati who's going to usher in the Anti-Christ disguised as liberal ideology. No I am not shitting you...
See my above post from earlier in the evening. It is basically Pizzagate on steroids. I would bet dollars to donuts your relatives know ALL about it. In addition to the George Soros, Jewish Cabal angle (which is just par for the course at this point) there is also this absolute obsession with believing that nearly every significant leftist politician is a member of an international pedophile ring, including (I shit you not) Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg.
The idea of a vast conspiracy that rules the world while brutalizing children is certainly nothing new. What is odd about Qanon is that they not only believe in this type of secret evil conspiracy, but also that there's a secret good conspiracy (led by Trump) fighting the evil ones.
In this version of (un)reality, Trump arranged the appointment of Mueller in order to help him gather information about the evil conspirators. Once enough is known the US Army (for some reason that is apparently not under the control of evil conspirators) will work with Mueller and Trump to crush the evil ones.
This narrative can be used to explain any apparent oddities in behavior from Trump or any actions that appear to conflict with the expectations of his supporters and it's thus helpful to shore up his political support at the moment. However, it may well prove dangerous in the future. It seems pretty incredible to me that anyone can believe at the moment that Mueller is working on behalf of Trump to find evidence of an evil conspiracy. However, if you do believe that, then what would your reaction be if Mueller eventually prosecutes Trump? I suspect at some point you would realize they were not working together and conclude that Mueller had been 'turned' by the evil conspiracy. This would be evidence that the evil ones were too deep-rooted for even Trump to deal with and that he needs the support of ordinary people - violence would then follow ...
Ever try to argue with them using logic? My family loves the old 'wisdom of the world is foolishness to God' scripture every time I try to use my brain to talk to them. It's the perfect Bible verse to excuse ignorance. Gee, why study when God (aka: my pastor, radio talk show host, priest, youth minister, evangelist, etc...) can tell me everything I need to know.
Ever try to argue with them using logic? My family loves the old 'wisdom of the world is foolishness to God' scripture every time I try to use my brain to talk to them. It's the perfect Bible verse to excuse ignorance. Gee, why study when God (aka: my pastor, radio talk show host, priest, youth minister, evangelist, etc...) can tell me everything I need to know.
Ever try to argue with them using logic? My family loves the old 'wisdom of the world is foolishness to God' scripture every time I try to use my brain to talk to them. It's the perfect Bible verse to excuse ignorance. Gee, why study when God (aka: my pastor, radio talk show host, priest, youth minister, evangelist, etc...) can tell me everything I need to know.
Eppur si muove.
Yet it took centuries for this to be believed. Liberalism will achieve their humanitarian goals in the long-run. However, pushing for change too quickly (ie: overplaying their hand) will lead to backlash. In the meantime, I'm sorry but overtaxing the rich, open borders and playing the guilt card with regards to climate change I cannot get behind. I'm stuck in the goddamned middle but agree with the conservatives on the economy so I'm left with f'ing Trump by default. Yay.
Making America great again didn't have to be a vote for Trump but thanks to our two wonderful parties that's what it became...
The idea of a vast conspiracy that rules the world while brutalizing children is certainly nothing new. What is odd about Qanon is that they not only believe in this type of secret evil conspiracy, but also that there's a secret good conspiracy (led by Trump) fighting the evil ones.
In this version of (un)reality, Trump arranged the appointment of Mueller in order to help him gather information about the evil conspirators. Once enough is known the US Army (for some reason that is apparently not under the control of evil conspirators) will work with Mueller and Trump to crush the evil ones.
This narrative can be used to explain any apparent oddities in behavior from Trump or any actions that appear to conflict with the expectations of his supporters and it's thus helpful to shore up his political support at the moment. However, it may well prove dangerous in the future. It seems pretty incredible to me that anyone can believe at the moment that Mueller is working on behalf of Trump to find evidence of an evil conspiracy. However, if you do believe that, then what would your reaction be if Mueller eventually prosecutes Trump? I suspect at some point you would realize they were not working together and conclude that Mueller had been 'turned' by the evil conspiracy. This would be evidence that the evil ones were too deep-rooted for even Trump to deal with and that he needs the support of ordinary people - violence would then follow ...
I tend to notice that if there is one thing people who believe in this kind of stuff simply CANNOT tolerate in their own head is being proved wrong. See anyone who has ever followed a religious preacher who predicts the end of the world on a concrete, specific date, the end of the world doesn't come, and they just predict a NEW date, and basically everyone just follows right along. So when this nonsense falls apart, they won't divorce themselves from it, they will just add the fact that the conspiracy fell apart as a new part of the conspiracy, ad infinitum.
Frankly, the GOP has been playing on this minefield since the 90s when Clinton got into office in '92. Clinton's sexual escapades were by NO MEANS the only rabbit hole the far-right went down in this decade. Bill and Hillary weren't just immoral, they were actual murderers who faked suicides and planted bodies on train tracks in Arkansas to cover up a cocaine smuggling ring. This stuff was promoted on Rush Limbaugh's show, and it's arguable the 90s were the height of his power. When Obama got into office, almost IMMEDIATELY, the narrative on the right (which was never pushed back on by any prominent Republican officeholder) was that maybe, just maybe (oh hell, PROBABLY), he wasn't born in this country, but Kenya. Even when the White House produced his birth certificate (which no white person would EVER have had to do), it didn't matter. Then the goalposts shifted to the idea that it was forged (I guess the idea being that his parents were so forward thinking that the moment their child was born they immediately had a fake birth certificate issued for him in anticipation that 45 years later he would become President of the United States), and on and on and on. Trump not only subscribed to this theory, he ACTIVELY encouraged and promoted it on FOX News for basically the entire Obama Administration.
Point being, the GOP base has been fed absolute poison as far as irresponsible rhetoric goes for pretty much the last 25 years. A straight IV drip of fever-swamp, batshit crazy lunacy. If you haven't immersed yourself in hours upon hours of AM radio over the years, you can't possibly quite understand just how toxic it is. I did so for years, and when Trump came along, I had already heard everything he was saying a thousand times on commutes to and from work. And Trump, a student of right-wing media, saw this, and exploited it. It's how he got the nomination. Trump basically made the thinking of Alex Jones and InfoWars a perfectly legitimate mainstream view in the Republican electorate. And frankly, it had been for a long while. He just gave vocal permission for everyone to come out of the closet about it. And these are the results of those gates opening. He isn't going to stop, he is going to keep encouraging it.
The idea of a vast conspiracy that rules the world while brutalizing children is certainly nothing new. What is odd about Qanon is that they not only believe in this type of secret evil conspiracy, but also that there's a secret good conspiracy (led by Trump) fighting the evil ones.
In this version of (un)reality, Trump arranged the appointment of Mueller in order to help him gather information about the evil conspirators. Once enough is known the US Army (for some reason that is apparently not under the control of evil conspirators) will work with Mueller and Trump to crush the evil ones.
This narrative can be used to explain any apparent oddities in behavior from Trump or any actions that appear to conflict with the expectations of his supporters and it's thus helpful to shore up his political support at the moment. However, it may well prove dangerous in the future. It seems pretty incredible to me that anyone can believe at the moment that Mueller is working on behalf of Trump to find evidence of an evil conspiracy. However, if you do believe that, then what would your reaction be if Mueller eventually prosecutes Trump? I suspect at some point you would realize they were not working together and conclude that Mueller had been 'turned' by the evil conspiracy. This would be evidence that the evil ones were too deep-rooted for even Trump to deal with and that he needs the support of ordinary people - violence would then follow ...
I tend to notice that if there is one thing people who believe in this kind of stuff simply CANNOT tolerate in their own head is being proved wrong. See anyone who has ever followed a religious preacher who predicts the end of the world on a concrete, specific date, the end of the world doesn't come, and they just predict a NEW date, and basically everyone just follows right along. So when this nonsense falls apart, they won't divorce themselves from it, they will just add the fact that the conspiracy fell apart as a new part of the conspiracy, ad infinitum.
Frankly, the GOP has been playing on this minefield since the 90s when Clinton got into office in '92. Clinton's sexual escapades were by NO MEANS the only rabbit hole the far-right went down in this decade. Bill and Hillary weren't just immoral, they were actual murderers who faked suicides and planted bodies on train tracks in Arkansas to cover up a cocaine smuggling ring. This stuff was promoted on Rush Limbaugh's show, and it's arguable the 90s were the height of his power. When Obama got into office, almost IMMEDIATELY, the narrative on the right (which was never pushed back on by any prominent Republican officeholder) was that maybe, just maybe (oh hell, PROBABLY), he wasn't born in this country, but Kenya. Even when the White House produced his birth certificate (which no white person would EVER have had to do), it didn't matter. Then the goalposts shifted to the idea that it was forged (I guess the idea being that his parents were so forward thinking that the moment their child was born they immediately had a fake birth certificate issued for him in anticipation that 45 years later he would become President of the United States), and on and on and on. Trump not only subscribed to this theory, he ACTIVELY encouraged and promoted it on FOX News for basically the entire Obama Administration.
Point being, the GOP base has been fed absolute poison as far as irresponsible rhetoric goes for pretty much the last 25 years. A straight IV drip of fever-swamp, batshit crazy lunacy. If you haven't immersed yourself in hours upon hours of AM radio over the years, you can't possibly quite understand just how toxic it is. I did so for years, and when Trump came along, I had already heard everything he was saying a thousand times on commutes to and from work. And Trump, a student of right-wing media, saw this, and exploited it. It's how he got the nomination. Trump basically made the thinking of Alex Jones and InfoWars a perfectly legitimate mainstream view in the Republican electorate. And frankly, it had been for a long while. He just gave vocal permission for everyone to come out of the closet about it. And these are the results of those gates opening. He isn't going to stop, he is going to keep encouraging it.
I don't disagree with any of this and it makes anybody on the right look like we're a bunch of nutballs. It's not true. We have valid, logical points that get swallowed up by this drivel!
The idea of a vast conspiracy that rules the world while brutalizing children is certainly nothing new. What is odd about Qanon is that they not only believe in this type of secret evil conspiracy, but also that there's a secret good conspiracy (led by Trump) fighting the evil ones.
In this version of (un)reality, Trump arranged the appointment of Mueller in order to help him gather information about the evil conspirators. Once enough is known the US Army (for some reason that is apparently not under the control of evil conspirators) will work with Mueller and Trump to crush the evil ones.
This narrative can be used to explain any apparent oddities in behavior from Trump or any actions that appear to conflict with the expectations of his supporters and it's thus helpful to shore up his political support at the moment. However, it may well prove dangerous in the future. It seems pretty incredible to me that anyone can believe at the moment that Mueller is working on behalf of Trump to find evidence of an evil conspiracy. However, if you do believe that, then what would your reaction be if Mueller eventually prosecutes Trump? I suspect at some point you would realize they were not working together and conclude that Mueller had been 'turned' by the evil conspiracy. This would be evidence that the evil ones were too deep-rooted for even Trump to deal with and that he needs the support of ordinary people - violence would then follow ...
I tend to notice that if there is one thing people who believe in this kind of stuff simply CANNOT tolerate in their own head is being proved wrong. See anyone who has ever followed a religious preacher who predicts the end of the world on a concrete, specific date, the end of the world doesn't come, and they just predict a NEW date, and basically everyone just follows right along. So when this nonsense falls apart, they won't divorce themselves from it, they will just add the fact that the conspiracy fell apart as a new part of the conspiracy, ad infinitum.
Frankly, the GOP has been playing on this minefield since the 90s when Clinton got into office in '92. Clinton's sexual escapades were by NO MEANS the only rabbit hole the far-right went down in this decade. Bill and Hillary weren't just immoral, they were actual murderers who faked suicides and planted bodies on train tracks in Arkansas to cover up a cocaine smuggling ring. This stuff was promoted on Rush Limbaugh's show, and it's arguable the 90s were the height of his power. When Obama got into office, almost IMMEDIATELY, the narrative on the right (which was never pushed back on by any prominent Republican officeholder) was that maybe, just maybe (oh hell, PROBABLY), he wasn't born in this country, but Kenya. Even when the White House produced his birth certificate (which no white person would EVER have had to do), it didn't matter. Then the goalposts shifted to the idea that it was forged (I guess the idea being that his parents were so forward thinking that the moment their child was born they immediately had a fake birth certificate issued for him in anticipation that 45 years later he would become President of the United States), and on and on and on. Trump not only subscribed to this theory, he ACTIVELY encouraged and promoted it on FOX News for basically the entire Obama Administration.
Point being, the GOP base has been fed absolute poison as far as irresponsible rhetoric goes for pretty much the last 25 years. A straight IV drip of fever-swamp, batshit crazy lunacy. If you haven't immersed yourself in hours upon hours of AM radio over the years, you can't possibly quite understand just how toxic it is. I did so for years, and when Trump came along, I had already heard everything he was saying a thousand times on commutes to and from work. And Trump, a student of right-wing media, saw this, and exploited it. It's how he got the nomination. Trump basically made the thinking of Alex Jones and InfoWars a perfectly legitimate mainstream view in the Republican electorate. And frankly, it had been for a long while. He just gave vocal permission for everyone to come out of the closet about it. And these are the results of those gates opening. He isn't going to stop, he is going to keep encouraging it.
I don't disagree with any of this and it makes anybody on the right look like we're a bunch of nutballs. It's not true. We have valid, logical points that get swallowed up by this drivel!
Many religious may not make a whole lot of sense logically and scientifically, and as far as I’m concerned, they should stop trying to. The whole point of faith is that you believe despite there being no proof. And science and logic require proof.
But where they are strong is a deep commitment to a sense of morality, even if that morality is not preferred by some. This is where, in my opinion, those who espouse intellectualism fall short, and it’s a big problem for the future of western society. We all must find some way to come to terms with the difference between right and wrong, and must establish a universal standard of objective morality. Western society was built on the morality of Judaism and Christianity. Instead of continuing to embrace those morales, subjectivism as a philosophy, or even worse, pragmatism or consequentialism are mainstream now. Both of these philosophies eschew objective morality and place either personal experience, the will of the majority, or the greater good for the most amount of people as the moral standard.
But where they are strong is a deep commitment to a sense of morality, even if that morality is not preferred by some. This is where, in my opinion, those who espouse intellectualism fall short, and it’s a big problem for the future of western society. We all must find some way to come to terms with the difference between right and wrong, and must establish a universal standard of objective morality. Western society was built on the morality of Judaism and Christianity. Instead of continuing to embrace those morales, subjectivism as a philosophy, or even worse, pragmatism or consequentialism are mainstream now. Both of these philosophies eschew objective morality and place either personal experience, the will of the majority, or the greater good for the most amount of people as the moral standard.
I disagree with this in a variety of ways.
First - I dont believe that morality is objective to begin with. History is the lens through which I perceive this. If we rooted our morality in place, enshrining it a series of absolute commandments which could never be changed nor reconsidered, we would be stuck with an antiquated moral outlook. One where women and POC were treated as less than people. In those days, that concept fit squarely and comfortably into the contemporaneous moral code. To the contrary, I think it is one of our greatest strengths, the ability to adapt our understanding of morality to confront issues without some rigid dogma, but instead with critical thinking and rational thought.
Second - I think it gives unfair privilege to Judeo-Christian religions to pretend that morality was "built" upon Judeo-Christian morality, when that morality was obviously influenced by the rules and laws of civilizations that had come before. It's a pithy line that is meant to tie religion and morality together in a way that empowers the religious.
Ever try to argue with them using logic? My family loves the old 'wisdom of the world is foolishness to God' scripture every time I try to use my brain to talk to them. It's the perfect Bible verse to excuse ignorance. Gee, why study when God (aka: my pastor, radio talk show host, priest, youth minister, evangelist, etc...) can tell me everything I need to know.
Eppur si muove.
Yet it took centuries for this to be believed. Liberalism will achieve their humanitarian goals in the long-run. However, pushing for change too quickly (ie: overplaying their hand) will lead to backlash. In the meantime, I'm sorry but overtaxing the rich, open borders and playing the guilt card with regards to climate change I cannot get behind. I'm stuck in the goddamned middle but agree with the conservatives on the economy so I'm left with f'ing Trump by default. Yay.
Making America great again didn't have to be a vote for Trump but thanks to our two wonderful parties that's what it became...
I think you are disagreeing with strawmen or misconceptions fueled by right wing points.
Overtaxing the rich. Seriously? They don't pay taxes, you and I pay taxes. They own the politicians they get the loopholes. The middle class "loophole" the State and Local Tax deduction was eliminated while corporate tax rate was halved resulting in stock buybacks that do nothing for average joe. The economy is booming - except is it? It might be for wall street, it ain't for main street. And for most we are in constant danger of exposure to medical bankrupcy. It's like a reverse lottery the medical bill and you have pretty good odds of it happening to you in your lifetime. Like close to 100%.
Open borders? No one is saying that. Abolish ice? Sure that's been said but we got along just fine without them. I think of it more as a backlash against police brutality and the police state we are currently in. Things were fine before, Trump has made things worse. Hey it's not an easy problem. Big picture, I'd say we have to prop up Mexico so that people are proud of being mexican and we can have enough trust to have open borders like the EU. That's not perfect over there but dammit there was enough trust to go for it. We are far from that here, the first thing would be to work with Mexico and help them they have gang problems and stuff. Our drug policies have made illegal drugs so lucrative that it overwhelmed their economy. We have some blame here and drug reform here at home would help them and us because the policies we have now are failures.
Climate change. Who cares about guilt. Lets just stop poisoning the air and water and destroying nature. Then we wouldn't have these fires, heat waves, droughts, record temperatures, hurricanes. What more of a sign do you want? What's the guilt got to do with it? People don't want to feel bad but want to do whatever they want. Even though they know that what they are doing is wrong. The problem is the guilt not the results of the behavior. What?
But where they are strong is a deep commitment to a sense of morality, even if that morality is not preferred by some. This is where, in my opinion, those who espouse intellectualism fall short, and it’s a big problem for the future of western society. We all must find some way to come to terms with the difference between right and wrong, and must establish a universal standard of objective morality. Western society was built on the morality of Judaism and Christianity. Instead of continuing to embrace those morales, subjectivism as a philosophy, or even worse, pragmatism or consequentialism are mainstream now. Both of these philosophies eschew objective morality and place either personal experience, the will of the majority, or the greater good for the most amount of people as the moral standard.
I disagree with this in a variety of ways.
First - I dont believe that morality is objective to begin with. History is the lens through which I perceive this. If we rooted our morality in place, enshrining it a series of absolute commandments which could never be changed nor reconsidered, we would be stuck with an antiquated moral outlook. One where women and POC were treated as less than people. In those days, that concept fit squarely and comfortably into the contemporaneous moral code. To the contrary, I think it is one of our greatest strengths, the ability to adapt our understanding of morality to confront issues without some rigid dogma, but instead with critical thinking and rational thought.
Second - I think it gives unfair privilege to Judeo-Christian religions to pretend that morality was "built" upon Judeo-Christian morality, when that morality was obviously influenced by the rules and laws of civilizations that had come before. It's a pithy line that is meant to tie religion and morality together in a way that empowers the religious.
Christianity is pretty much the definition of immorality. Here's a series of ridiculous commandments, but don't worry, if you can't follow them you have loophole. Just suck up to JC and you're off the hook even for kiddyfiddling or whatever!
But where they are strong is a deep commitment to a sense of morality, even if that morality is not preferred by some. This is where, in my opinion, those who espouse intellectualism fall short, and it’s a big problem for the future of western society. We all must find some way to come to terms with the difference between right and wrong, and must establish a universal standard of objective morality. Western society was built on the morality of Judaism and Christianity. Instead of continuing to embrace those morales, subjectivism as a philosophy, or even worse, pragmatism or consequentialism are mainstream now. Both of these philosophies eschew objective morality and place either personal experience, the will of the majority, or the greater good for the most amount of people as the moral standard.
I disagree with this in a variety of ways.
First - I dont believe that morality is objective to begin with. History is the lens through which I perceive this. If we rooted our morality in place, enshrining it a series of absolute commandments which could never be changed nor reconsidered, we would be stuck with an antiquated moral outlook. One where women and POC were treated as less than people. In those days, that concept fit squarely and comfortably into the contemporaneous moral code. To the contrary, I think it is one of our greatest strengths, the ability to adapt our understanding of morality to confront issues without some rigid dogma, but instead with critical thinking and rational thought.
Second - I think it gives unfair privilege to Judeo-Christian religions to pretend that morality was "built" upon Judeo-Christian morality, when that morality was obviously influenced by the rules and laws of civilizations that had come before. It's a pithy line that is meant to tie religion and morality together in a way that empowers the religious.
Christianity is pretty much the definition of immorality. Here's a series of ridiculous commandments, but don't worry, if you can't follow them you have loophole. Just suck up to JC and you're off the hook even for kiddyfiddling or whatever!
It's hard for many of us who grew up Catholic to EVER reconcile with the church after the sex abuse scandal came out. But it wasn't just on the church. As the movie "Spotlight" makes clear, the communities that the church was the center of KNEW something was not right in many cases. No one talked about it, no one really dared speak it's name, but people absolutely knew something was off. The well-being of the kids (oftentimes their OWN kids) was sacrificed because to accuse an individual priest would be an attack on the church, and since in many places the church essentially WAS the community, everyone turned a blind eye to what was perfectly obvious in hindsight. In many cases, the police and prosecutors did NOTHING even after being presented repeated and concrete evidence of the abuse because they too were part of the same faith community. Even though it is a dramatization, I can't recommend the movie enough, as it's a potent, simple explanation and reminder of how this was allowed to happen.
First: You just described in a nutshell an aspect of subjectivism. I believe that morality is objective. To use your own example, what would be bad about establishing as a lawful precedent or morale commandment now to treat women and POC as less than people?
Second: I said Western society was built on Judaism and Christianity, and to clarify, I mean Judeo/Christian values. These values are special in that they place the value of the sovereign individual above that of the collective or the state.
I thank both of you for pointing this out. This actually leads to my main point.
Before I make that, I’d like to say that any religion is just like every other time that people collect together in a group in the history of the world: there are evil, horrible people that do horrible things.
To clarify my point, it is taught in Christian and Judaic doctrine that if you are hypocritical and break the laws of God while espousing them, that it is immoral. This was one a big part of the Old Testament and one of the central points of Jesus in the New Testament. The motivation to stay away from immorality is judgement day.
But here’s the difference: there is a standard of universal objective morality in the doctrine of Christianity that is not present in the mainstream today.
So, to take that in perspective, without the Christian standard of objective morality, why should I be moral? Why should I not be a hypocrite? Without a god, why should I love a good life, especially if I have enough money and power to get away with doing otherwise? In that light, what even defines a “good” life? What defines evil, and why should I even avoid it if I like it?
These are questions that intellectuals have yet to answer without resorting to pragmatism/consequentialism, which is a horrible basis for morality because anything can be justified if it serves “the greater good.” Either that, or good and evil are basically denied using subjectivism.
First: You just described in a nutshell an aspect of subjectivism. I believe that morality is objective. To use your own example, what would be bad about establishing as a lawful precedent or morale commandment now to treat women and POC as less than people?
Second: I said Western society was built on Judaism and Christianity, and to clarify, I mean Judeo/Christian values. These values are special in that they place the value of the sovereign individual above that of the collective or the state.
First: What do you mean when you say morality is objective? Do you believe in divine command theory, as in if god as the arbiter of objective morality says childrape is morally virtuous then it is?
Second: Was it though? I see this assertion from time to time. Never does it carry supporting evidence.
I thank both of you for pointing this out. This actually leads to my main point.
Before I make that, I’d like to say that any religion is just like every other time that people collect together in a group in the history of the world: there are evil, horrible people that do horrible things.
To clarify my point, it is taught in Christian and Judaic doctrine that if you are hypocritical and break the laws of God while espousing them, that it is immoral. This was one a big part of the Old Testament and one of the central points of Jesus in the New Testament. The motivation to stay away from immorality is judgement day.
But here’s the difference: there is a standard of universal objective morality in the doctrine of Christianity that is not present in the mainstream today.
So, to take that in perspective, without the Christian standard of objective morality, why should I be moral? Why should I not be a hypocrite? Without a god, why should I love a good life, especially if I have enough money and power to get away with doing otherwise? In that light, what even defines a “good” life? What defines evil, and why should I even avoid it if I like it?
These are questions that intellectuals have yet to answer without resorting to pragmatism/consequentialism, which is a horrible basis for morality because anything can be justified if it serves “the greater good.” Either that, or good and evil are basically denied using subjectivism.
But you can break all the moral commandments and still avoid your divine punishment if you just accept Jesus or whatever. You can lead a horrible life and still be saved. This is not moral in any sense.
First: When I say that morality is universally objective, I mean that it is independent of human perspective. In other words, something like slavery or pedophelia is immoral now, in the past, and in the future. It doesn’t matter if everyone in the nation votes for it, likes it, or doesn’t agree with it, there are standards of objective morality that apply to humanity because we have free will. I believe that we discover morality just as we have discovered science and technology, which are both independent of human perspective: It was always there, but we just didn’t know enough to make use of it, or we hadn’t discovered it yet.
As far as what I believe religiously, I don’t know if I really want to get into that in this thread. I was raised by a deeply immoral and hypocritical “Christian” woman, but not sure if I follow the religion anymore. If you want to PM me to discuss it, I don’t mind, or we could open another thread called the personal religion/non-religion thread. This is a political thread, so I am discussing morality as a basis for political discussion, and religion plays a heavy role in politics.
Second: Christianity was central to the later Roman Empire (hence Roman Catholic). Christianity was unique to Western Europe for its entire history. And America has been Christian since its founding. All the founding fathers, while not all Catholic or reformist, were Christian edit: or Jewish theologically.
(Third): That is what some churches teach, but it isn’t part of the doctrine in the Bible. People must be held accountable for their sins in Christianity. Just because there’s some preachers out there (just like leaders in other organizations) that want to keep the cash flowing in by not offending their patrons doesn’t mean that the doctrine of morality is non-existent.
So I repeat my question to you: why should I be moral? Without god or divinity, what is it that should motivate me not enslave humanity in the case of an economic collapse? I am, of course, an evil scientist bent on taking over the world, so convince me not to.
So, to take that in perspective, without the Christian standard of objective morality, why should I be moral? Why should I not be a hypocrite? Without a god, why should I love a good life, especially if I have enough money and power to get away with doing otherwise? In that light, what even defines a “good” life? What defines evil, and why should I even avoid it if I like it?
I think this is one of the main differences between religion and morality. To me morality is about doing what you believe is the right thing, as opposed to doing it because your religion says you must. Following on from that I believe it's quite possible to be profoundly religious and also extremely immoral at the same time - though I agree that as there is a significant overlap between religious values and current-day morality, that's not the norm.
It seems clear to me that morals do change over time. For instance I wouldn't describe as immoral the behavior of a man who denied women the chance to work or vote - if he lived in a society that believed that the first duty of men was to protect women. That does mean that morality is a shifting concept, both over time and between individuals and I can understand why that would be viewed with suspicion.
The more objective standard offered by many religions seems attractive by contrast, but leads to problems where standards that made good sense for a particular time become outdated, but are not easily discarded. That can relate to pretty minor issues like Muslims wearing beards (as a distinguishing mark from pagans), or Jews not eating pork and shellfish (for health reasons). However, religions are also very much involved in more important practices that are not justified in the modern world - like sexual discrimination.
@Grond0 Ok, so, using the tone of your example, what if I believed in being sexist was the right thing? I don’t believe this, but it’s hypothetical.
Without an objective standard of morality, why should I not be sexist now? Because it’s the general consensus? The general consensus in the past has often been wrong, so how I do I know it’s “wrong” to be sexist? What method do you use to evaluate whether or not something is “good” or “evil”? Religion has always served the role of western civilization’s conscience (though not necessarily with perfection) until recently, and I believe this is something we are severely lacking today in our politics.
(I look forward to the answers later. I’m checking out now. Peace and love to you all.)
@Grond0 Ok, so, using the tone of your example, what if I believed in being sexist was the right thing? I don’t believe this, but it’s hypothetical.
Without an objective standard of morality, why should I not be sexist now? Because it’s the general consensus? The general consensus in the past has often been wrong, so how I do I know it’s “wrong” to be sexist? What method do you use to evaluate whether or not something is “good” or “evil”? Religion has always served the role of western civilization’s conscience (though not necessarily with perfection) until recently, and I believe this is something we are severely lacking today in our politics.
(I look forward to the answers later. I’m checking out now. Peace and love to you all.)
@mashedtaters all good questions. Unsurprisingly there are no easy answers, but here are my views .
Without an objective standard of morality, why should I not be sexist now? As I said in the previous post I see morality as essentially an individual's view of what is right or wrong. Sometimes you'll see references to 'group morality' and I agree that shared understandings of what is right and wrong do develop - but where that happens I would say they take on the status of laws (written or unwritten).
If someone were to define their own behavior as sexist, that would seem to me to be an indication that they knew it was wrong, but were doing it anyway (perhaps because they wanted to display power or gain a commercial advantage). That would be immoral under my definition, while the same behavior would not be immoral if the person genuinely believed what they were doing was in the best interests of others.
The general consensus in the past has often been wrong, so how I do I know it’s “wrong” to be sexist? What method do you use to evaluate whether or not something is “good” or “evil”? I believe that morality is the individual perception of whether something is good or evil. It's therefore entirely possible for what is considered evil to change over time and for the same behavior to be considered as both good and evil by different people. One of my concerns about religion is that providing an objective standard of right and wrong (particularly where it's held that standard is not subject to change over time), can lead to far too much certainty that your views are correct and another person's are not. A religious fanatic would therefore not necessarily be acting immorally by punishing you or killing you for failure to convert to his religion, but that's going to be of little comfort to you.
In western societies I think it's relatively unusual now for people to really believe that women should not have equal rights. Someone who displayed sexist behavior without believing that would be acting immorally - even if such behavior were sanctioned by their religion.
Religion has always served the role of western civilization’s conscience (though not necessarily with perfection) until recently, and I believe this is something we are severely lacking today in our politics. I'm unconvinced by this. I agree that religion has often had a role in reinforcing personal morality and to that extent has helped frame improvements to society. However, it has also had a significant role in perpetuating prejudice and promoting conflicts. I'm undecided if the overall historical effect has been positive or negative, but I certainly don't see any necessity for religion to play a central role in governing society in future.
Just to link in to some recent discussion on the thread the question of whether morality is subjective or objective has similarities in principle to determining the status of religious writings - are they the Word of God to be followed exactly, a useful guide by experts, irrelevant nonsense or works of the devil? The same sort of processes are currently under discussion in relation to the US Constitution - how literally should this be interpreted? Clearly I would take the subjective approach and say that it needs to be interpreted in the light of society as it now is, not as it was 200+ years ago. However, there's clearly a move at the moment towards a more objective approach ...
The idea of a vast conspiracy that rules the world while brutalizing children is certainly nothing new. What is odd about Qanon is that they not only believe in this type of secret evil conspiracy, but also that there's a secret good conspiracy (led by Trump) fighting the evil ones.
In this version of (un)reality, Trump arranged the appointment of Mueller in order to help him gather information about the evil conspirators. Once enough is known the US Army (for some reason that is apparently not under the control of evil conspirators) will work with Mueller and Trump to crush the evil ones.
This narrative can be used to explain any apparent oddities in behavior from Trump or any actions that appear to conflict with the expectations of his supporters and it's thus helpful to shore up his political support at the moment. However, it may well prove dangerous in the future. It seems pretty incredible to me that anyone can believe at the moment that Mueller is working on behalf of Trump to find evidence of an evil conspiracy. However, if you do believe that, then what would your reaction be if Mueller eventually prosecutes Trump? I suspect at some point you would realize they were not working together and conclude that Mueller had been 'turned' by the evil conspiracy. This would be evidence that the evil ones were too deep-rooted for even Trump to deal with and that he needs the support of ordinary people - violence would then follow ...
I tend to notice that if there is one thing people who believe in this kind of stuff simply CANNOT tolerate in their own head is being proved wrong. See anyone who has ever followed a religious preacher who predicts the end of the world on a concrete, specific date, the end of the world doesn't come, and they just predict a NEW date, and basically everyone just follows right along. So when this nonsense falls apart, they won't divorce themselves from it, they will just add the fact that the conspiracy fell apart as a new part of the conspiracy, ad infinitum.
Frankly, the GOP has been playing on this minefield since the 90s when Clinton got into office in '92. Clinton's sexual escapades were by NO MEANS the only rabbit hole the far-right went down in this decade. Bill and Hillary weren't just immoral, they were actual murderers who faked suicides and planted bodies on train tracks in Arkansas to cover up a cocaine smuggling ring. This stuff was promoted on Rush Limbaugh's show, and it's arguable the 90s were the height of his power. When Obama got into office, almost IMMEDIATELY, the narrative on the right (which was never pushed back on by any prominent Republican officeholder) was that maybe, just maybe (oh hell, PROBABLY), he wasn't born in this country, but Kenya. Even when the White House produced his birth certificate (which no white person would EVER have had to do), it didn't matter. Then the goalposts shifted to the idea that it was forged (I guess the idea being that his parents were so forward thinking that the moment their child was born they immediately had a fake birth certificate issued for him in anticipation that 45 years later he would become President of the United States), and on and on and on. Trump not only subscribed to this theory, he ACTIVELY encouraged and promoted it on FOX News for basically the entire Obama Administration.
Point being, the GOP base has been fed absolute poison as far as irresponsible rhetoric goes for pretty much the last 25 years. A straight IV drip of fever-swamp, batshit crazy lunacy. If you haven't immersed yourself in hours upon hours of AM radio over the years, you can't possibly quite understand just how toxic it is. I did so for years, and when Trump came along, I had already heard everything he was saying a thousand times on commutes to and from work. And Trump, a student of right-wing media, saw this, and exploited it. It's how he got the nomination. Trump basically made the thinking of Alex Jones and InfoWars a perfectly legitimate mainstream view in the Republican electorate. And frankly, it had been for a long while. He just gave vocal permission for everyone to come out of the closet about it. And these are the results of those gates opening. He isn't going to stop, he is going to keep encouraging it.
I don't disagree with any of this and it makes anybody on the right look like we're a bunch of nutballs. It's not true. We have valid, logical points that get swallowed up by this drivel!
You know, I see a lot of strawmen in political arguments today. I see liberals saying that conservatives are racist fascist bigots who want to shoot minorities, poison the water supply, and steal from the poor to give to the rich. I see conservatives saying that liberals are smug sissy tyrants who want to let criminals run free, burn money, and abolish jobs. I see independents saying that liberals and conservatives are brainwashed over-emotional zealots who want to do all of the above. We have a situation where people base their politics not on current policy, or on potential policy, but on paranoid fantasies about what the "other side" will do if we ever give them the power. We have a situation where people define themselves--and more importantly, each other--by party affiliation rather than political philosophy.
I think the best solution to this problem is simple: don't get your views about liberalism from random extremists who happen to be liberal (or at least, anti-conservative). Don't get your views about conservative from random extremists who happen to be conservative (or at least, anti-liberal). And don't get your views on liberalism from conservatives who oppose it, or conservatism from liberals who oppose it, because they have every reason to distort the views of their political opponents to make them look bad.
Instead, base your views of liberalism on how liberals themselves express it. Base your views of conservatism on how conservatives themselves express it. They are the most qualified to explain their own views, and they have the least reason to distort it.
The reason I bring it up is because you, @Balrog99, are my favorite example of a real conservative. You are my biggest source for the conservative perspective on politics today. And I may disagree with you on all kinds of things, in theory and in practice, but I can respect your convictions and understand your position. You're an intelligent man with sincere opinions, and that's how I see most conservatives--and not just 51% of conservatives, or even just the large majority, but almost all. Maybe the high 90s; I don't know.
I think that's a realistic view of half of the United States.
And, as a liberal, it's probably not surprising that I see liberals much the same way. I don't think of liberals as a gaggle of crazies, either.
I keep being reminded of John McCain's statements during the 2008 election to a woman who was afraid of an Obama presidency.
He is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as of resident. If I didn’t think I’d be one heck of a better President I wouldn’t be running, and that’s the point. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments, I will respect him. I want everyone to be respectful, and let’s make sure we are. Because that’s the way politics should be conducted in America.
First: You just described in a nutshell an aspect of subjectivism. I believe that morality is objective. To use your own example, what would be bad about establishing as a lawful precedent or morale commandment now to treat women and POC as less than people?
That was sort of the point. If you create an objective dogma of moral absolutism, you cannot change it to suit society's needs. Ever. It's absolute. It's unchanging. It's objective. If you have decided that same-sex partnership is immoral due to Leviticus (as a result of those Judeo-Christian values). You cant uncork that bottle later. It stays. If you do change it... then it's subjective!
If we had written the code of objective morality in, say, 1545 at the council of Trent - it stays. Homosexuality is now forever against our objective code of morality.
Second: I said Western society was built on Judaism and Christianity, and to clarify, I mean Judeo/Christian values. These values are special in that they place the value of the sovereign individual above that of the collective or the state.
I also think this in incorrect. You're using terminology that really is not reflective of the period of time we have discussed. There was no meaningful concept of "the collective" (collectivism). Individualism also wasnt really a philosophical point of view at that time (probably because there was no counter point to it). As such, I dont see how Judeo-christian value relate.
@deltago Beliefs can change. Believing something simply means you take it to be true. You can believe for good reasons (evidence and reasoning) or bad reasons (religious faith). But belief itself is not inherently bad, and you certainly believe a lot of things. For example, hopefully you believe like I do that the earth is an oblate spheroid based on available evidence
@Grond0 Ok, so, using the tone of your example, what if I believed in being sexist was the right thing? I don’t believe this, but it’s hypothetical.
Without an objective standard of morality, why should I not be sexist now? Because it’s the general consensus? The general consensus in the past has often been wrong, so how I do I know it’s “wrong” to be sexist? What method do you use to evaluate whether or not something is “good” or “evil”? Religion has always served the role of western civilization’s conscience (though not necessarily with perfection) until recently, and I believe this is something we are severely lacking today in our politics.
(I look forward to the answers later. I’m checking out now. Peace and love to you all.)
What method did you use to discover that there is an objective morality? What method do you use to discover what it entails? Have we discovered all of it? When we discussing morals, how do we know whether we are in agreement with the objective morality? For example, why did people used to think slavery was not wrong?
How can we have morals with God or religion? It's easy if you try.
Recognize we are all flesh bags that are only here for a limited time. With that understanding hopefully comes empathy for others - they are the same flawed organism just trying to get by. You have the responsibility to be moral. Sorry you can't blame it on holy horrors or excuse yourself as only a celestial play thing.
Lyrics to Freewill by Rush
There are those who think that life Has nothing left to chance A host of holy horrors To direct our aimless dance
A planet of playthings We dance on the strings Of powers we cannot perceive The stars aren't aligned Or the gods are malign Blame is better to give than receive
You can choose a ready guide In some celestial voice If you choose not to decide You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears And kindness that can kill I will choose a path that's clear I will choose free will
There are those who think that They've been dealt a losing hand The cards were stacked against them They weren't born in Lotus-Land
All preordained A prisoner in chains A victim of venomous fate Kicked in the face You can't pray for a place In heaven's unearthly estate
You can choose a ready guide In some celestial voice If you choose not to decide You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears And kindness that can kill I will choose a path that's clear I will choose free will
Each of us A cell of awareness Imperfect and incomplete Genetic blends With uncertain ends On a fortune hunt That's far too fleet
You can choose a ready guide In some celestial voice If you choose not to decide You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears And kindness that can kill I will choose a path that's clear I will choose free will
If you have no empathy and the type that would go enslave or torture people then religion won't help you either way. The Salem witchcraft trials, crusades, Spanish Inquisition all had religion but failed on morality.
@FinneousPJ "Christianity is pretty much the definition of immorality. Here's a series of ridiculous commandments, but don't worry, if you can't follow them you have loophole. Just suck up to JC and you're off the hook even for kiddyfiddling or whatever!"
Oh really? Should go down this list of "ridiculous commandments"?
1-3. Have no other gods, don't worship objects, Don't curse God's name. (All related to the worship of God. Has no meaning for non-followers) 4. Keep the Sabath. (technically religious, but setting a day aside to rest seems like a good idea to me.) 5. Honor your father and mother. (Verb form, the fulfillment of an obligation. Listen to your parents kids.) 6-10. Don't murder anyone, Don't sleep with someone else's spouse, Don't steal, Don't falsely testify against your neighbor, Don't covet what others have. These all seem to be good general rules for society.
Is this still too complicated? Jesus made it even simpler. 1.Don't worship any other than God. (again, purely religious) 2. Treat others with love and respect, as you would wish to be treated. (Well hot dang, "Don't be an arse seems like a pretty solid commandment to me.)
"But you can break all the moral commandments and still avoid your divine punishment if you just accept Jesus or whatever. You can lead a horrible life and still be saved. This is not moral in any sense."
Sorry, this is straight up false. The Bible regularly renounces lip service and regularly encourages faith backed up by action.
For those looking for some objective morality. Has there ever been a society that encouraged murder of its fellow citizens outside the law? How about discouraging the gathering of food for said society? Working in the defense of? There are consistent core values throughout history.
@deltago "Love everyone. Treat everyone the way you in return want to be treated and loved. That’s the basis of morality. Everything else is noise. "
Yup, that's the core doctrine of Christianity right there.
*edit* Realized I wrote a wall of text and bolded my responses to better differentiate them from the quotes.
@FinneousPJ "Christianity is pretty much the definition of immorality. Here's a series of ridiculous commandments, but don't worry, if you can't follow them you have loophole. Just suck up to JC and you're off the hook even for kiddyfiddling or whatever!"
Oh really? Should go down this list of "ridiculous commandments"?
1-3. Have no other gods, don't worship objects, Don't curse God's name. (All related to the worship of God. Has no meaning for non-followers) 4. Keep the Sabath. (technically religious, but setting a day aside to rest seems like a good idea to me.) 5. Honor your father and mother. (Verb form, the fulfillment of an obligation. Listen to your parents kids.) 6-10. Don't murder anyone, Don't sleep with someone else's spouse, Don't steal, Don't falsely testify against your neighbor, Don't covet what others have. These all seem to be good general rules for society.
I don't see it. 1-5 don't impress me the least. Why is having no other gods a good general rule for society? It's a general rule that the US constitution certainly disagrees with. Same with 2-4. And the bible contains 613 commandments, most of which are ridiculous.
Is this still too complicated? Jesus made it even simpler. 1.Don't worship any other than God. (again, purely religious) 2. Treat others with love and respect, as you would wish to be treated. (Well hot dang, "Don't be an arse seems like a pretty solid commandment to me.)
Too complicated? Why do you seek to undermine my intelligence? Doesn't seem very Christian. O wait...
That's not all Jesus said, though. I can look up some stuff if you'd like me to.
"But you can break all the moral commandments and still avoid your divine punishment if you just accept Jesus or whatever. You can lead a horrible life and still be saved. This is not moral in any sense."
Sorry, this is straight up false. The Bible regularly renounces lip service and regularly encourages faith backed up by action.
For those looking for some objective morality. Has there ever been a society that encouraged murder of its fellow citizens outside the law? How about discouraging the gathering of food for said society? Working in the defense of? There are consistent core values throughout history.
@deltago "Love everyone. Treat everyone the way you in return want to be treated and loved. That’s the basis of morality. Everything else is noise. "
Yup, that's the core doctrine of Christianity right there.
*edit* Realized I wrote a wall of text and bolded my responses to better differentiate them from the quotes.
It's false? Many churches teach that, and it's even in the bible
Romans 10:9-10 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
Beliefs can change. Believing something simply means you take it to be true. You can believe for good reasons (evidence and reasoning) or bad reasons (religious faith). But belief itself is not inherently bad, and you certainly believe a lot of things. For example, hopefully you believe like I do that the earth is an oblate spheroid based on available evidence
Beliefs take a longer time to change because a person has to reset a fundamental truth to that of a falsehood. Even then, a person may still hold onto some form of the original truth when reasoning.
Physical beliefs are different from spiritual ones. Yes at them moment I believe I am writing a message on my phone. That is different than, the opinion that I am sharing while I write the message is true.
Beliefs don't necessarily address any "fundamental truths". What does that even mean? And what does spiritual mean? (Or spiritual belief which you referred to.)
Comments
In this version of (un)reality, Trump arranged the appointment of Mueller in order to help him gather information about the evil conspirators. Once enough is known the US Army (for some reason that is apparently not under the control of evil conspirators) will work with Mueller and Trump to crush the evil ones.
This narrative can be used to explain any apparent oddities in behavior from Trump or any actions that appear to conflict with the expectations of his supporters and it's thus helpful to shore up his political support at the moment. However, it may well prove dangerous in the future. It seems pretty incredible to me that anyone can believe at the moment that Mueller is working on behalf of Trump to find evidence of an evil conspiracy. However, if you do believe that, then what would your reaction be if Mueller eventually prosecutes Trump? I suspect at some point you would realize they were not working together and conclude that Mueller had been 'turned' by the evil conspiracy. This would be evidence that the evil ones were too deep-rooted for even Trump to deal with and that he needs the support of ordinary people - violence would then follow ...
Making America great again didn't have to be a vote for Trump but thanks to our two wonderful parties that's what it became...
Frankly, the GOP has been playing on this minefield since the 90s when Clinton got into office in '92. Clinton's sexual escapades were by NO MEANS the only rabbit hole the far-right went down in this decade. Bill and Hillary weren't just immoral, they were actual murderers who faked suicides and planted bodies on train tracks in Arkansas to cover up a cocaine smuggling ring. This stuff was promoted on Rush Limbaugh's show, and it's arguable the 90s were the height of his power. When Obama got into office, almost IMMEDIATELY, the narrative on the right (which was never pushed back on by any prominent Republican officeholder) was that maybe, just maybe (oh hell, PROBABLY), he wasn't born in this country, but Kenya. Even when the White House produced his birth certificate (which no white person would EVER have had to do), it didn't matter. Then the goalposts shifted to the idea that it was forged (I guess the idea being that his parents were so forward thinking that the moment their child was born they immediately had a fake birth certificate issued for him in anticipation that 45 years later he would become President of the United States), and on and on and on. Trump not only subscribed to this theory, he ACTIVELY encouraged and promoted it on FOX News for basically the entire Obama Administration.
Point being, the GOP base has been fed absolute poison as far as irresponsible rhetoric goes for pretty much the last 25 years. A straight IV drip of fever-swamp, batshit crazy lunacy. If you haven't immersed yourself in hours upon hours of AM radio over the years, you can't possibly quite understand just how toxic it is. I did so for years, and when Trump came along, I had already heard everything he was saying a thousand times on commutes to and from work. And Trump, a student of right-wing media, saw this, and exploited it. It's how he got the nomination. Trump basically made the thinking of Alex Jones and InfoWars a perfectly legitimate mainstream view in the Republican electorate. And frankly, it had been for a long while. He just gave vocal permission for everyone to come out of the closet about it. And these are the results of those gates opening. He isn't going to stop, he is going to keep encouraging it.
But where they are strong is a deep commitment to a sense of morality, even if that morality is not preferred by some. This is where, in my opinion, those who espouse intellectualism fall short, and it’s a big problem for the future of western society. We all must find some way to come to terms with the difference between right and wrong, and must establish a universal standard of objective morality. Western society was built on the morality of Judaism and Christianity. Instead of continuing to embrace those morales, subjectivism as a philosophy, or even worse, pragmatism or consequentialism are mainstream now. Both of these philosophies eschew objective morality and place either personal experience, the will of the majority, or the greater good for the most amount of people as the moral standard.
First - I dont believe that morality is objective to begin with. History is the lens through which I perceive this. If we rooted our morality in place, enshrining it a series of absolute commandments which could never be changed nor reconsidered, we would be stuck with an antiquated moral outlook. One where women and POC were treated as less than people. In those days, that concept fit squarely and comfortably into the contemporaneous moral code. To the contrary, I think it is one of our greatest strengths, the ability to adapt our understanding of morality to confront issues without some rigid dogma, but instead with critical thinking and rational thought.
Second - I think it gives unfair privilege to Judeo-Christian religions to pretend that morality was "built" upon Judeo-Christian morality, when that morality was obviously influenced by the rules and laws of civilizations that had come before. It's a pithy line that is meant to tie religion and morality together in a way that empowers the religious.
Overtaxing the rich. Seriously? They don't pay taxes, you and I pay taxes. They own the politicians they get the loopholes. The middle class "loophole" the State and Local Tax deduction was eliminated while corporate tax rate was halved resulting in stock buybacks that do nothing for average joe. The economy is booming - except is it? It might be for wall street, it ain't for main street. And for most we are in constant danger of exposure to medical bankrupcy. It's like a reverse lottery the medical bill and you have pretty good odds of it happening to you in your lifetime. Like close to 100%.
Open borders? No one is saying that. Abolish ice? Sure that's been said but we got along just fine without them. I think of it more as a backlash against police brutality and the police state we are currently in. Things were fine before, Trump has made things worse. Hey it's not an easy problem. Big picture, I'd say we have to prop up Mexico so that people are proud of being mexican and we can have enough trust to have open borders like the EU. That's not perfect over there but dammit there was enough trust to go for it. We are far from that here, the first thing would be to work with Mexico and help them they have gang problems and stuff. Our drug policies have made illegal drugs so lucrative that it overwhelmed their economy. We have some blame here and drug reform here at home would help them and us because the policies we have now are failures.
Climate change. Who cares about guilt. Lets just stop poisoning the air and water and destroying nature. Then we wouldn't have these fires, heat waves, droughts, record temperatures, hurricanes. What more of a sign do you want? What's the guilt got to do with it? People don't want to feel bad but want to do whatever they want. Even though they know that what they are doing is wrong. The problem is the guilt not the results of the behavior. What?
First: You just described in a nutshell an aspect of subjectivism. I believe that morality is objective. To use your own example, what would be bad about establishing as a lawful precedent or morale commandment now to treat women and POC as less than people?
Second: I said Western society was built on Judaism and Christianity, and to clarify, I mean Judeo/Christian values. These values are special in that they place the value of the sovereign individual above that of the collective or the state.
I thank both of you for pointing this out. This actually leads to my main point.
Before I make that, I’d like to say that any religion is just like every other time that people collect together in a group in the history of the world: there are evil, horrible people that do horrible things.
To clarify my point, it is taught in Christian and Judaic doctrine that if you are hypocritical and break the laws of God while espousing them, that it is immoral. This was one a big part of the Old Testament and one of the central points of Jesus in the New Testament. The motivation to stay away from immorality is judgement day.
But here’s the difference: there is a standard of universal objective morality in the doctrine of Christianity that is not present in the mainstream today.
So, to take that in perspective, without the Christian standard of objective morality, why should I be moral? Why should I not be a hypocrite? Without a god, why should I love a good life, especially if I have enough money and power to get away with doing otherwise? In that light, what even defines a “good” life? What defines evil, and why should I even avoid it if I like it?
These are questions that intellectuals have yet to answer without resorting to pragmatism/consequentialism, which is a horrible basis for morality because anything can be justified if it serves “the greater good.” Either that, or good and evil are basically denied using subjectivism.
Second: Was it though? I see this assertion from time to time. Never does it carry supporting evidence.
First: When I say that morality is universally objective, I mean that it is independent of human perspective. In other words, something like slavery or pedophelia is immoral now, in the past, and in the future. It doesn’t matter if everyone in the nation votes for it, likes it, or doesn’t agree with it, there are standards of objective morality that apply to humanity because we have free will. I believe that we discover morality just as we have discovered science and technology, which are both independent of human perspective: It was always there, but we just didn’t know enough to make use of it, or we hadn’t discovered it yet.
Second: Christianity was central to the later Roman Empire (hence Roman Catholic). Christianity was unique to Western Europe for its entire history. And America has been Christian since its founding. All the founding fathers, while not all Catholic or reformist, were Christian edit: or Jewish theologically.
(Third): That is what some churches teach, but it isn’t part of the doctrine in the Bible. People must be held accountable for their sins in Christianity. Just because there’s some preachers out there (just like leaders in other organizations) that want to keep the cash flowing in by not offending their patrons doesn’t mean that the doctrine of morality is non-existent.
So I repeat my question to you: why should I be moral? Without god or divinity, what is it that should motivate me not enslave humanity in the case of an economic collapse? I am, of course, an evil scientist bent on taking over the world, so convince me not to.
It seems clear to me that morals do change over time. For instance I wouldn't describe as immoral the behavior of a man who denied women the chance to work or vote - if he lived in a society that believed that the first duty of men was to protect women. That does mean that morality is a shifting concept, both over time and between individuals and I can understand why that would be viewed with suspicion.
The more objective standard offered by many religions seems attractive by contrast, but leads to problems where standards that made good sense for a particular time become outdated, but are not easily discarded. That can relate to pretty minor issues like Muslims wearing beards (as a distinguishing mark from pagans), or Jews not eating pork and shellfish (for health reasons). However, religions are also very much involved in more important practices that are not justified in the modern world - like sexual discrimination.
Ok, so, using the tone of your example, what if I believed in being sexist was the right thing? I don’t believe this, but it’s hypothetical.
Without an objective standard of morality, why should I not be sexist now? Because it’s the general consensus? The general consensus in the past has often been wrong, so how I do I know it’s “wrong” to be sexist? What method do you use to evaluate whether or not something is “good” or “evil”? Religion has always served the role of western civilization’s conscience (though not necessarily with perfection) until recently, and I believe this is something we are severely lacking today in our politics.
(I look forward to the answers later. I’m checking out now. Peace and love to you all.)
Without an objective standard of morality, why should I not be sexist now?
As I said in the previous post I see morality as essentially an individual's view of what is right or wrong. Sometimes you'll see references to 'group morality' and I agree that shared understandings of what is right and wrong do develop - but where that happens I would say they take on the status of laws (written or unwritten).
If someone were to define their own behavior as sexist, that would seem to me to be an indication that they knew it was wrong, but were doing it anyway (perhaps because they wanted to display power or gain a commercial advantage). That would be immoral under my definition, while the same behavior would not be immoral if the person genuinely believed what they were doing was in the best interests of others.
The general consensus in the past has often been wrong, so how I do I know it’s “wrong” to be sexist?
What method do you use to evaluate whether or not something is “good” or “evil”?
I believe that morality is the individual perception of whether something is good or evil. It's therefore entirely possible for what is considered evil to change over time and for the same behavior to be considered as both good and evil by different people. One of my concerns about religion is that providing an objective standard of right and wrong (particularly where it's held that standard is not subject to change over time), can lead to far too much certainty that your views are correct and another person's are not. A religious fanatic would therefore not necessarily be acting immorally by punishing you or killing you for failure to convert to his religion, but that's going to be of little comfort to you.
In western societies I think it's relatively unusual now for people to really believe that women should not have equal rights. Someone who displayed sexist behavior without believing that would be acting immorally - even if such behavior were sanctioned by their religion.
Religion has always served the role of western civilization’s conscience (though not necessarily with perfection) until recently, and I believe this is something we are severely lacking today in our politics.
I'm unconvinced by this. I agree that religion has often had a role in reinforcing personal morality and to that extent has helped frame improvements to society. However, it has also had a significant role in perpetuating prejudice and promoting conflicts. I'm undecided if the overall historical effect has been positive or negative, but I certainly don't see any necessity for religion to play a central role in governing society in future.
Just to link in to some recent discussion on the thread the question of whether morality is subjective or objective has similarities in principle to determining the status of religious writings - are they the Word of God to be followed exactly, a useful guide by experts, irrelevant nonsense or works of the devil? The same sort of processes are currently under discussion in relation to the US Constitution - how literally should this be interpreted? Clearly I would take the subjective approach and say that it needs to be interpreted in the light of society as it now is, not as it was 200+ years ago. However, there's clearly a move at the moment towards a more objective approach ...
I think the best solution to this problem is simple: don't get your views about liberalism from random extremists who happen to be liberal (or at least, anti-conservative). Don't get your views about conservative from random extremists who happen to be conservative (or at least, anti-liberal). And don't get your views on liberalism from conservatives who oppose it, or conservatism from liberals who oppose it, because they have every reason to distort the views of their political opponents to make them look bad.
Instead, base your views of liberalism on how liberals themselves express it. Base your views of conservatism on how conservatives themselves express it. They are the most qualified to explain their own views, and they have the least reason to distort it.
The reason I bring it up is because you, @Balrog99, are my favorite example of a real conservative. You are my biggest source for the conservative perspective on politics today. And I may disagree with you on all kinds of things, in theory and in practice, but I can respect your convictions and understand your position. You're an intelligent man with sincere opinions, and that's how I see most conservatives--and not just 51% of conservatives, or even just the large majority, but almost all. Maybe the high 90s; I don't know.
I think that's a realistic view of half of the United States.
And, as a liberal, it's probably not surprising that I see liberals much the same way. I don't think of liberals as a gaggle of crazies, either.
I keep being reminded of John McCain's statements during the 2008 election to a woman who was afraid of an Obama presidency.
If we had written the code of objective morality in, say, 1545 at the council of Trent - it stays. Homosexuality is now forever against our objective code of morality. I also think this in incorrect. You're using terminology that really is not reflective of the period of time we have discussed. There was no meaningful concept of "the collective" (collectivism). Individualism also wasnt really a philosophical point of view at that time (probably because there was no counter point to it). As such, I dont see how Judeo-christian value relate.
I don’t believe, everything I have is an opinion. Opinions can change, they fluctuate as I listen and understand. You can not do that with a belief.
Love everyone. Treat everyone the way you in return want to be treated and loved. That’s the basis of morality. Everything else is noise.
Recognize we are all flesh bags that are only here for a limited time. With that understanding hopefully comes empathy for others - they are the same flawed organism just trying to get by. You have the responsibility to be moral. Sorry you can't blame it on holy horrors or excuse yourself as only a celestial play thing.
Lyrics to Freewill by Rush
There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance
A host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance
A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren't aligned
Or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give than receive
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will
There are those who think that
They've been dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them
They weren't born in Lotus-Land
All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will
Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt
That's far too fleet
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will
If you have no empathy and the type that would go enslave or torture people then religion won't help you either way. The Salem witchcraft trials, crusades, Spanish Inquisition all had religion but failed on morality.
Oh really? Should go down this list of "ridiculous commandments"?
1-3. Have no other gods, don't worship objects, Don't curse God's name. (All related to the worship of God. Has no meaning for non-followers)
4. Keep the Sabath. (technically religious, but setting a day aside to rest seems like a good idea to me.)
5. Honor your father and mother. (Verb form, the fulfillment of an obligation. Listen to your parents kids.)
6-10. Don't murder anyone, Don't sleep with someone else's spouse, Don't steal, Don't falsely testify against your neighbor, Don't covet what others have. These all seem to be good general rules for society.
Is this still too complicated? Jesus made it even simpler.
1.Don't worship any other than God. (again, purely religious)
2. Treat others with love and respect, as you would wish to be treated. (Well hot dang, "Don't be an arse seems like a pretty solid commandment to me.)
"But you can break all the moral commandments and still avoid your divine punishment if you just accept Jesus or whatever. You can lead a horrible life and still be saved. This is not moral in any sense."
Sorry, this is straight up false. The Bible regularly renounces lip service and regularly encourages faith backed up by action.
For those looking for some objective morality. Has there ever been a society that encouraged murder of its fellow citizens outside the law? How about discouraging the gathering of food for said society? Working in the defense of? There are consistent core values throughout history.
@deltago "Love everyone. Treat everyone the way you in return want to be treated and loved. That’s the basis of morality. Everything else is noise. "
Yup, that's the core doctrine of Christianity right there.
*edit* Realized I wrote a wall of text and bolded my responses to better differentiate them from the quotes.
That's not all Jesus said, though. I can look up some stuff if you'd like me to. It's false? Many churches teach that, and it's even in the bible
Romans 10:9-10
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
Physical beliefs are different from spiritual ones. Yes at them moment I believe I am writing a message on my phone. That is different than, the opinion that I am sharing while I write the message is true.