Religion and Individualism

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I agree with LCoU here (maybe that's Eastern philosophy and religion coming through... ). I personally don't set any type of life above another. To me, a claim like this is fundamentally flawed, and an example of where religion has deeply affected custom and society.

As I said - Society is what defines morality. You may not like zoos and so forth because of your beliefs. But the majority do not see anything wrong with this. You can not have a zoo closed down just because it's a zoo on moral grounds. However if the animals are ill treated you can - and that is solely because society has again said that illtreatment of animals is immoral. However - we freely use them for testing products - again society determines that this is perfectly acceptable for ensuring the safety of humans.

So regardless of your own moral standings - morality is defined by society.

[Elemmírë]

I agree with you, JD. We cross-posted.

It seems to me that yes, morality is defined by society. But at the same time, it also seems that society is defined by morality, which makes for a rather unbreakable feedback loop.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Oh... neat thread. herd instinct... nice Nietzsche quote to use...



We're not? What are we then, plants? fungi?



I agree with LCoU here (maybe that's Eastern philosophy and religion coming through... ). I personally don't set any type of life above another. To me, a claim like this is fundamentally flawed, and an example of where religion has deeply affected custom and society.

[edit] cross post- We would, wouldn't we, LCoU...

i agree whole-heartedly

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

JD partly answered this question. I'd like to add that, the Ten Commandments were a moral code for the Jews travelling through the desert who couldn't survive without "killing other life" so it's only logical to interpret "kill" as "take a human life."

No, you do'nt interpret "kill" that way. The correct translation is "murder" not "kill" which is a point I made in my post. Please read it completely.

[Bombadillo]

Individuality and relegion are not necassarily connnected. I believe humans are born with a conscience, that before we can even reason we can be saddened or frightened by hearing about a gruesome murder. Morality, I think, is only individual: how often we listen to that conscience, how much we develop on it, and how much we decide to continue obeying it. If our morality eventually turns out to agree directly with a religion, than good for that relegion; it's gained a zealot! But our development to that belief is all our own.
(So I think that humans are born with the instinct to do "'good," but that's no "herd instinct" IMO because it doesn't involve at all what other people define as good. Because we all have this same instict, it's understandable that we'd look like a mindless herd to people who haven't completely deveoloped their instinctive conscience. no offense)

However, in my case, I was born into a Catholic family and I attend Catholic school. Juniors actually take a course called "Morality." I was told this year that I'm a mortal sinner doomed to hell because I never ever think about God's will. Personally, whenever I do a good deed, I don't do it with God in mind; I know that I'm doing something good that and that's just fine. I don't think I should be obligated to give any god credit for that knowlege of mine. But Christian morality defines my opinion here as a mortal sin, blasphemy. I know I'm not a blasphemer because I never ever think to compare myself to God. I think that accusation is too dissagreeable to accept and conform to mindlessly. So I'm proud of my individuality, free of religion.

JD, I might be misunderstanding you, but it seems like you're seriously confusing morality with ethics. Laws set be society (like the speed limit, laws against murder, or laws against gay marriage) are influenced by political, economic, social, and moral interests of that society alike. But not all of these values are applicable to all laws. We can't steal in NJ because most citizens have declared it morally wrong, and because it disrupts the economy and community prosperity.

EDIT: About how to interperet "thou shalt not kill," I am sure it was intended to address murder, but of course some people will interperet that more literally, because we are individuals. That's fine, not to mention impossible to argue. Ever debate with a creationalist? Remember Emplynx?

I had something else to say, but I don't have time to remember what it was...

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

No, you do'nt interpret "kill" that way. The correct translation is "murder" not "kill" which is a point I made in my post. Please read it completely.

Just for general knowledge, it is 'murder' in Hebrew.

(I've always said the translators were bad. I actually didn;'t notice till now.)

[Rían]

Thanks for the info, Rad! We now have it straight from the original language! Yay for Entmoot's global society!

I imagine when it was first translated "kill" in English, it was obvious that the word was applying to people, but then word meanings and society backgrounds shifted. If one bothers to look into context and stuff like that, it's extremely obvious it's talking about the murder of a person (IOW, killing for personal gain). There's even an exception for killing out of justifiable anger (like killing someone that harmed your wife) or killing by accident - there's a lesser penalty (just like in most countries today). And of couse the Israeli soldiers weren't killed for killing enemies in battle.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

It seems to me that yes, morality is defined by society. But at the same time, it also seems that society is defined by morality, which makes for a rather unbreakable feedback loop.

interesting comment, El!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Individuality and relegion are not necassarily connnected. I believe humans are born with a conscience, that before we can even reason we can be saddened or frightened by hearing about a gruesome murder. Morality, I think, is only individual: how often we listen to that conscience, how much we develop on it, and how much we decide to continue obeying it. If our morality eventually turns out to agree directly with a religion, than good for that relegion; it's gained a zealot! But our development to that belief is all our own.

(So I think that humans are born with the instinct to do "'good," but that's no "herd instinct" IMO because it doesn't involve at all what other people define as good. Because we all have this same instict, it's understandable that we'd look like a mindless herd to people who haven't completely deveoloped their instinctive conscience. no offense)

You ignore the fact of the influence in your home. if your parents are in the mafia - I can guarantee you will most likely have a different view of murder - than someone who isn't (at least if you are aware of what your father does for a living).

YOu don't grow up in a vacuum with no influence from the outside - even as a child. Why do you think children who grow up in abusive families - even when they hate living in that situation - generally end up being abusers themselves?

However, in my case, I was born into a Catholic family and I attend Catholic school. Juniors actually take a course called "Morality." I was told this year that I'm a mortal sinner doomed to hell because I never ever think about God's will. Personally, whenever I do a good deed, I don't do it with God in mind; I know that I'm doing something good that and that's just fine. I don't think I should be obligated to give any god credit for that knowlege of mine. But Christian morality defines my opinion here as a mortal sin, blasphemy. I know I'm not a blasphemer because I never ever think to compare myself to God. I think that accusation is too dissagreeable to accept and conform to mindlessly. So I'm proud of my individuality, free of religion.

Well you couldn't be god - I'm god.

JD, I might be misunderstanding you, but it seems like you're seriously confusing morality with ethics. Laws set be society (like the speed limit, laws against murder, or laws against gay marriage) are influenced by political, economic, social, and moral interests of that society alike. But not all of these values are applicable to all laws. We can't steal in NJ because most citizens have declared it morally wrong, and because it disrupts the economy and community prosperity.

I didn't bring up the the speed limit. I said that was not an issue of morality. As for murder and gay marriage - those are related to societies view of morality - just like society has determined that it is morally acceptable to kill an unborn child - BUT not in the context of murder of the mother or even with a car accident. If a drunk driver hits a pregnant woman and the unborn child dies - the person can't be charged with murder - yet that woman can go to an abortion clinic and basically kill that unborn child with no problem. This is because secular society has seperated the morality of the two events while the catholic Church sees no difference.

[Bombadillo]

It's a good thing we have Rad to shoot down our illigitamate basis for argument.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You ignore the fact of the influence in your home. if your parents are in the mafia - I can guarantee you will most likely have a different view of murder - than someone who isn't (at least if you are aware of what your father does for a living).

YOu don't grow up in a vacuum with no influence from the outside - even as a child. Why do you think children who grow up in abusive families - even when they hate living in that situation - generally end up being abusers themselves?

I know that, sorry. It's very related to what I meant to add.

Usually in a thread like this someone would have already brought up that "good" and "bad" have no operational definition in this context. Since a person's experiences since childhood are so influencial to their character development, I rarely think that a person can be labeled a "bad" person. If anything, they've been sadly but inevitably misguided.

The only concept that I would give a bad "absolute value" to is spite. REbels without a cause, dissmissing reason puropsely to dwell in their own anger, knowing that they will annoy people and make them angry at them in turn, and ignoring that; I have no respect for people like this--they've rejected everything that makes them human as far as I'm concerned. And that's not just a characteristic of youth, because I'm avoiding it in my youth, and many people don't outgrow it. Those people are intolerable.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well you couldn't be god - I'm god.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I didn't bring up the the speed limit. I said that was not an issue of morality. As for murder and gay marriage - those are related to societies view of morality - just like society has determined that it is morally acceptable to kill an unborn child - BUT not in the context of murder of the mother or even with a car accident. If a drunk driver hits a pregnant woman and the unborn child dies - the person can't be charged with murder - yet that woman can go to an abortion clinic and basically kill that unborn child with no problem. This is because secular society has seperated the morality of the two events while the catholic Church sees no difference.

I see what you mean now. But in addition to that, the current ban on late-term abortion in America wasn't really placed by American society. I think the Pres may have brought it about to bring us a step closer to denouncing all abortions, which according to his morality is always bad. (We know that's arguable for some cases, but again, ever argue with a Creationalist? ) My point is that not all laws are really society's chosen moral guidelines.

And I left something else incomplete in my post that I'll have to reinsert here. Ignore it if you want, since I got my most relevant point across but this is really only important to me:
I was told this year that I'm a mortal sinner doomed to hell because I never ever think about God's will. Personally, whenever I do a good deed, I don't do it with God in mind; I know that I'm doing something good that and that's just fine. I don't think I should be obligated to give any god credit for that knowlege of mine. [More importantly, I'm doing something good anyway, even totally oblivious to what God says I should do; isn't that an accomplishment, that I've learned to be good all by myself? I'm proud enough to know that I don't have to rely on a religion to know how to be a decent person. But Christianity calls that arrogance. I think it's introspection, and I don't think it's bad on my part if I'm aware of myself as a human being capable of reason.] But Christian morality defines my opinion here as a mortal sin, blasphemy. I know I'm not a blasphemer because I never ever think to compare myself to God. I think that accusation is too dissagreeable to accept and conform to mindlessly. So I'm proud of my individuality, free of religion.

[inked]

Interestingly, Plato in THE REPUBLIC reports Socrates grounding morality in the individual for the development of the soul and eschews personal aggrandizement as the antithesis of that development. cf Guyges and the Ring of Invisibility.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I see what you mean now. But in addition to that, the current ban on late-term abortion in America wasn't really placed by American society. I think the Pres may have brought it about to bring us a step closer to denouncing all abortions, which according to his morality is always bad. (We know that's arguable for some cases, but again, ever argue with a Creationalist? ) My point is that not all laws are really society's chosen moral guidelines.

Well you are incorrect in only Bush supporting a ban on late term abortion - Clinton also supported the ban - he just didn't agree with the legilsature not including that it is okay for late term abortions if the mother's life is in danger. This is the same reason why Christie Whitman - former REPUBLICAN governor - also vetoed the ban on late term abortions.

Clinton asks to allow late-term
abortion for women's safety
ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton asked Congress Wednesday to amend a bill outlawing a type of late-term abortion to permit the procedure when a woman's life or health is at risk. He said he had studied and prayed about it for months.

The measure seeks to outlaw a rare procedure known as an intact dilation and evacuation, which is performed after 20 weeks of gestation and is called by abortion opponents a partial birth abortion. The White House has said previously that Clinton would veto the bill in its current form, but it was the first time he personally addressed the controversy.

"I have studied and prayed about this issue, and about the families who must face this awful choice, for many months," Clinton said in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and other lawmakers.

Responding to Clinton's proposal, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said he was disappointed and urged the president "to rethink your position so that we can stop this brutal and indefensible procedure."

Dole, R-Kan., who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, wrote Clinton that his argument about the bill "has already lost on the Senate floor and for good reason: This type of abortion procedure takes place over several days and as a result, 'health' is simply not an issue."

Anti-abortion groups said Clinton's proposal would render the bill meaningless. Abortion rights' advocates lauded it as an expression of presidential support for a woman's right to choose.

In the procedure, a fetus is partially extracted feet first and its skull is collapsed by suctioning out the brain to make it easier for the fetus to pass through the birth canal.

The procedure "is very disturbing, and I cannot support its use on an elective basis where the abortion is being performed for non-health related reasons and there are equally safe medical procedures available," the president wrote.

However, he said, there are "rare and tragic" circumstances in which the procedure could be needed to save a woman's life or protect her health.

The president wrote that he would support the measure if it were amended to make clear that the ban would not apply if a doctor considered the abortion method "necessary to preserve the life of the woman or avert serious health consequences to the woman."

A pro-choice group, the National Right to Life Committee, said the president's proposal would allow such late-term abortions to be performed for depression and other "purely psychological reasons and on healthy underage mothers."

The conservative Family Research Council said Clinton's intention to veto the bill "shows his clear disregard for the value of human life."

Helen Alvare, a spokeswoman for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, said "We are deeply offended by the president's decision É It is well known that a 'health' exception is a legal term of art that means any abortion a woman elects to have."

But Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, said "the president is clear in his commitment to choice."

She said the legislative ban violates women's constitutional rights because it doesn't make adequate exceptions for protecting a woman's health or life.

Jane Johnson, interim president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the group "shares President Clinton's confidence in the women of America to make the right decisions even when confronted with the most difficult and tragic dilemmas."

The bill is considered important because it would be the first time since the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion that Congress is voting to ban a particular abortion method.

"I have always believed that the decision to have an abortion should be between a woman, her conscience, her doctor and her God," the president wrote.

oh a side note - europeans and liberal bitch about Bish praying to god to guide him - but in this article Clinton states how he prayed to god to guide him in his decisions.

And I left something else incomplete in my post that I'll have to reinsert here. Ignore it if you want, since I got my most relevant point across but this is really only important to me:
I was told this year that I'm a mortal sinner doomed to hell because I never ever think about God's will. Personally, whenever I do a good deed, I don't do it with God in mind; I know that I'm doing something good that and that's just fine. I don't think I should be obligated to give any god credit for that knowlege of mine. [More importantly, I'm doing something good anyway, even totally oblivious to what God says I should do; isn't that an accomplishment, that I've learned to be good all by myself? I'm proud enough to know that I don't have to rely on a religion to know how to be a decent person. But Christianity calls that arrogance. I think it's introspection, and I don't think it's bad on my part if I'm aware of myself as a human being capable of reason.] But Christian morality defines my opinion here as a mortal sin, blasphemy. I know I'm not a blasphemer because I never ever think to compare myself to God. I think that accusation is too dissagreeable to accept and conform to mindlessly. So I'm proud of my individuality, free of religion.

Well I don't think you do things completely free from religion if you are religious or go to religious institutions. I know my being raised in the catholic church has an effect on what I do for others. I also know that growing up and having my grandmother telling me things about making fun of people and stuff had an affect on me. I do think you are more a product of your environment than anything else - whether that is your school, parents, friends, neighborhood. I do think parents have the most influence on a child though.

Having said that - in all my catholic school years I was nevwer told what you were told. YOU must be going to one of those strict catholic schools.

[Bombadillo]

Ah, well, I should have expected a news article of some sort. But I was only using that as a possible but uneducated example because I'd mentioned abortion already. A better one might be Teddy Roosevelt and his corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, his pledge to protect Central American nations with the US Navy. Nobody else's opinion was involved there. And that brought us one step closer to a nice canal through Panama, a possibility I'd bet he was aware of, but society hadn't even imagined it.

About me being free from religion, I did grow up a Catholic with a Catholic education. I guess I could have worded that more clearly in context, but I meant that I ignore Catholic teachings now, and therefore don't feel bound by it. (That's not to say I don't pay attention in class or don't listen to Catholics.)

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Having said that - in all my catholic school years I was nevwer told what you were told. YOU must be going to one of those strict catholic schools.

Not strict--expensive. No, my teacher is pretty eccentric, and he tries very hard to shock us into submission to Catholocism, highlighting what areas he hopes can scare us straight, but they usually are just the controversial ones. Bad teaching method if you ask me, but as long as he has that unique way to grab our attention, hey, let's raise tuition.

Originally Posted by inked

Interestingly, Plato in THE REPUBLIC reports Socrates grounding morality in the individual for the development of the soul and eschews personal aggrandizement as the antithesis of that development. cf Guyges and the Ring of Invisibility.

By personal aggrandizing, do you mean arrogance? Either way, I'm not an arrogant person. I just prefer to acknowledge my good character as a result of my lifelong introspection (coincidently, Socrates also explained introspection), and not adherence to the law of some God I've never met. I'm not calling myself glorious or anything like that, but very aware of who's controlling my psyche: me. When I think of what I can do for myself for personal development, I've never prayed for guidance, and still my values wind up matching the Church's, which I take to mean that I'm a nice person by those standards.
Besides, don't even talk about Plato. His wisdom is nothing compared to mine.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Ah, well, I should have expected a news article of some sort. But I was only using that as a possible but uneducated example because I'd mentioned abortion already. A better one might be Teddy Roosevelt and his corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, his pledge to protect Central American nations with the US Navy. Nobody else's opinion was involved there. And that brought us one step closer to a nice canal through Panama, a possibility I'd bet he was aware of, but society hadn't even imagined it.

About me being free from religion, I did grow up a Catholic with a Catholic education. I guess I could have worded that more clearly in context, but I meant that I ignore Catholic teachings now, and therefore don't feel bound by it. (That's not to say I don't pay attention in class or don't listen to Catholics.)

Well I knew you were Catolic and went to catholic school - I'm just saying regardless - you can't really just throw out your past experience. You are influenced by - even if you don't feel bound by it. Your past becomes a part of you - whether you like it or not.

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well I knew you were Catolic and went to catholic school - I'm just saying regardless - you can't really just throw out your past experience. You are influenced by - even if you don't feel bound by it. Your past becomes a part of you - whether you like it or not.

Definately, I agree with you on that. I appreciate what my first- through eighth-grade religion teachers did for my personality, but what they did for my faith didn't last.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

See - I believe we are animals - nothing more - except that we have a brain that allows us to reason.

But that makes all the difference. It's because we have this reason that we can't allow a law like "killing is wrong" to protect other people while it doesn't protect us.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

But then again - as I have said before - we can't judge the past on the morals of today. Morals change only because enough people change their opinions about morality of an issue to then become the majority.

Are you stating a fact or an opinion? You believe that morality is decided by the majority but you don't say whether you agree to that or not? Would you rather follow your own morality or that of "the herd"? (Excuse the metaphor )

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

what do you mean exactly by "absolute values of good and evil"?

I mean that there are values of GOOD and EVIL that are timeless and non-changing; IOW, regardless of societal morality, such things are still GOOD and EVIL in themselves. Take for instance love (as in Christian Charity) and hatred. I don't think you can apply a relativistic definition to morals and say that for example hatred is good. See what I mean?

Originally Posted by Elemmire

It seems to me that yes, morality is defined by society. But at the same time, it also seems that society is defined by morality, which makes for a rather unbreakable feedback loop.

Good point! But I think that it's not actually a loop; I prefer the second part: morality defines society. It's the common moral grounds that give the society a feeling of community and closeness.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I agree with LCoU here (maybe that's Eastern philosophy and religion coming through... ). I personally don't set any type of life above another. To me, a claim like this is fundamentally flawed, and an example of where religion has deeply affected custom and society.

I disagree, I think what really distinguishes us from (and sets us above) animals is that we have a soul and animals don't; the simplest proof of that: we are the only species capable of producing art.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Just for general knowledge, it is 'murder' in Hebrew.

Indeed, thanks a lot! It's a shame how many things (not only in the Bible) get lost in translation

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I believe humans are born with a conscience, that before we can even reason we can be saddened or frightened by hearing about a gruesome murder.

I agree with that as it chimes in with my view of morals as "absolute"; of course I don't deny the influence of one's environment, but I think that this influence is the real clouding of moral judgment. I further believe that people who grow under "bad" influence can come back into contact with this "conscience" through religion.
Here's where I disagree:

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I don't think I should be obligated to give any god credit for that knowlege of mine.

it's obvious from what you say here:

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I know I'm not a blasphemer because I never ever think to compare myself to God.

that you believe in God. But if you believe that God created you and gave you reason and soul, then why shouldn't you give Him credit for your knowledge?

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

The only concept that I would give a bad "absolute value" to is spite.

See my previous post with the love and hatred example.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Are you stating a fact or an opinion? You believe that morality is decided by the majority but you don't say whether you agree to that or not? Would you rather follow your own morality or that of "the herd"? (Excuse the metaphor )

Generally I follow the morality I believe in - but no one can not be influenced by the majority. Anyway - society puts restrictions on individual morality anyway. Even if, while I jokingly say about cannibalism - I was - I still couldn't follow my own morality of this - because society has put this restriction there.

See - Janny - don't worry - you're safe.

[inked]

Socrates argues for the moral life as noted above. Glaucon says people only act morally for they fear punishment. The moral life is the life chosen by the weak, he says. Plato argues for the moral life because the imnmoral life corrupts the soul of the immoral leading to mental anguish, loss of friends, and emotional bankruptcy. The moral person prefers to lead a life of inner peace and integrity, a life guided by moral principles, not one of power and satisfaction of self-interest.

This series of arguments seems to parallel the one in the Republic.

Tolkien has shown us these choices in LoTR in the persons of Gollum (corrupted by his choice of self-interest as the sole criterion of life), Boromir (the man yielded to self-will despite his bravery, strength, and virtue, but who redeems his selfish acts), and Galadriel (who offered the choice, chooses to refuse at great personal cost), and in Frodo (who ultimately unable to refuse the Ring is saved by prior moral choices in the form of grace).

Gollum rejects morality of any sort for self. Boromir has a social morality and ethic. Galadriel has her experience of the Valar and self-will and the results to guide her. Frodo has a moral sense and a will to do the right. It is the existence of the overarching self-existent morality that makes sense of these individuals and choices.

jerseydevil's argument that societies create morals is not true. Societies may choose to emphasize one or more aspects of the moral in their structure and treatment. Societies do not create their values. For example, the reference to the Episcopal Church and homosexuality is a case in point. The ECUSA has alleged a change in emphasis based on the allegations that justice trumps sexual morals of millenia. The Anglican Communion has said "no" and refer to the statement on human sexuality at Lambeth 1998. At the upcoming Primate's meeting in Dublin, it is likely that the Anglican Communion will split over the self-will of the ECUSA and the refusal of its bishops to submit to the 1998 statement and the Windsor Report 2004. The ECUSA assert a new emphasis; the Communion says, "no". If ECUSA persists, it may have to walk alone for its error by choosing self-will over common morality.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

I mean that there are values of GOOD and EVIL that are timeless and non-changing; IOW, regardless of societal morality, such things are still GOOD and EVIL in themselves. Take for instance love (as in Christian Charity) and hatred. I don't think you can apply a relativistic definition to morals and say that for example hatred is good. See what I mean?

depends how you define "good" of course. And I think defining love as "christian charity" is a highly limiting definition.

I disagree, I think what really distinguishes us from (and sets us above) animals is that we have a soul and animals don't; the simplest proof of that: we are the only species capable of producing art.

is music art? ive found art is one of the hardest things to define really.

[inked]

Well, IR, a famous man once said, "Why do you call me good? There is none good but God alone." Thereby establishing the Source and Origin of Good, eternal existence, and His identity with it. Hardly a limited definition! That man was Jesus of Nazareth, bar-Joseph. You have heard of Him?