Religion and Individualism

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

Since this a Tolkien forum, I oppose the LoTR to Hesse. Draw your own conclusions, but "good and evil have not changed". Morality is not relativistic nor societal, it overarchs societies. Else, why oppose Sauron?

Evil is different than morality though. Look at how many people in europe who threwout morality for the holocaust. If that isn't an example of societal morality - then I don't know what is. Millions and millions of Europeans during world war II saw nothing wrong with their neighbors being carted off, shot in the street or with them themselves turning in the "the dirty jew". And it wasn't just isolated to Germany. Anne Frank was in the Netherlands hiding out when her family was turned in.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by inked

Since this a Tolkien forum, I oppose the LoTR to Hesse. Draw your own conclusions, but "good and evil have not changed". Morality is not relativistic nor societal, it overarchs societies. Else, why oppose Sauron?

But Hesse would say that Sauron is the true individual because he was able to overcome the limits that morality sets on his behavior and followed the inner urge in him that compelled him to seek power. Remember, I share your point of view, I'm just pointing out Hesse's.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Interesting point. However, I wouldn't go as far as saying:

There are general outlines to each faith that most (not to say all!) believers adhere to. Take the Ten Commandments for example; if you conduct a survey, 99.99% people would agree that "Thou shalt not kill" is morally correct. Christians also agree about Charity (though they might interpret it differently) and the divinity of Jesus, etc...

First of all, how can one say "Thou shalt not kill" is morally correct, and then go eat? Whether you're vegetarian or not, you're killing life to eat. The actual translation should be "thou shalt not murder."

And your comment on Christians interpreting charity differently, well, that actually helps with my point. While yes, there are standards/bases of belief in each religion, they are all so open to interpretation, no two people agree on every single aspect. We all perceive the world differently, we all perceive faith and spirituality differently.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Because individual morality simply states that there is no universal morality. Law (and therefore Constitution) are simply not valid in that context because they represent the morality of a certain group of people only (the legislators) which can not apply to others.

Well, it depends what you mean by "universal morality". If you mean that somewhere there is some sort of spooky USB connection plugged into our souls feeding us universal morality, then I'd agree. But if you say that we have conceptions of a collective morality, then I'd agree.

But enough agreeing: I disagree about Law. It is nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No it hasn't and that's because we have laws - which are the secular version of "religious morality".

Whether you believe in a god or not - your morality is strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian principals if you live in the west. This is the culture that is predominate here. That is why In the US or in Europe - peopel don't throw acid on a woman for looking at a man or having sex out of wedlock. While in other parts of the world - it's condoned.

Society - whether it's through religion or through secular laws is solely what defines morality. If we condoned cannibolism tomorrow - inititially - because of the culture - people would still not feel comfortable eating another human being. But as time wore on - the morality would change because more people would find it acceptable as the old belief gave way to the new.

Whether you like it or not - it's the group (society) that defines morality - not the individual.

No, morality is not the same as law, nor indeed is law a "secular version" of religious morality.

We have laws, and we may have moral reasons for having them, and they may well embody aspects of our morality, but morals themselves don't exist outside of our heads.

We can only be said to have a "group-defined morality" insofar as we can negotiate them with our peers. Once agreed (or rather, learned, since so much is embedded in our respective culture as you point out), each person relates differently and inconsistently to the agreed "group morality" (or else why do people exceed the speed limit but still think of themselves as a "good person").

The strength of religion, as I said, has been in mediating this communication. From a social anthropological perspective, religion facilitates the negotiation, agreement and implementation of collective morality.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

First of all, how can one say "Thou shalt not kill" is morally correct, and then go eat? Whether you're vegetarian or not, you're killing life to eat. The actual translation should be "thou shalt not murder."

because life is referred top as human life and to extend it beyond that is pretty ridiculous. We set human life above animal or plant life.

And your comment on Christians interpreting charity differently, well, that actually helps with my point. While yes, there are standards/bases of belief in each religion, they are all so open to interpretation, no two people agree on every single aspect. We all perceive the world differently, we all perceive faith and spirituality differently.

But that doesn't mean that morality isn't defined by society. Charity is not an issue of morality - charity is an issue of empathy. Also - morality isn't black or white. But "thou shalt not kill" is not wrong because it's an individual thing - it's wrong because we as a society say it's wrong.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

No, morality is not the same as law, nor indeed is law a "secular version" of religious morality.

We have laws, and we may have moral reasons for having them, and they may well embody aspects of our morality, but morals themselves don't exist outside of our heads.

We can only be said to have a "group-defined morality" insofar as we can negotiate them with our peers. Once agreed (or rather, learned, since so much is embedded in our respective culture as you point out), each person relates differently and inconsistently to the agreed "group morality" (or else why do people exceed the speed limit but still think of themselves as a "good person").

The speed limit is not a moral issue at all. Stealing is a moral issue, raping someone is a moral issue as is killing. We have decided as a SOCIETY that these things are wrong. Just like some groups have decided that homosexual activity pr pedophilia is morally wrong. Yet during the Roman times - it was quite common for homosexual activity to be going on between men and young boys. Marc Anthony even had 13/14 year old male lover. So if it's not societal - then what is that? if it's not societal - then why can't some guy just have sex with a 13 year old boy?

The strength of religion, as I said, has been in mediating this communication. From a social anthropological perspective, religion facilitates the negotiation, agreement and implementation of collective morality.

As does representative government and laws - just at the secular level.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No it hasn't and that's because we have laws - which are the secular version of "religious morality".

Whether you believe in a god or not - your morality is strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian principals if you live in the west. This is the culture that is predominate here. That is why In the US or in Europe - peopel don't throw acid on a woman for looking at a man or having sex out of wedlock. While in other parts of the world - it's condoned.

Society - whether it's through religion or through secular laws is solely what defines morality. If we condoned cannibolism tomorrow - inititially - because of the culture - people would still not feel comfortable eating another human being. But as time wore on - the morality would change because more people would find it acceptable as the old belief gave way to the new.

Whether you like it or not - it's the group (society) that defines morality - not the individual.

considering our frequent disagreement, i feel obliged to point out how much i agree with the above

[Rían]

This is a different branch from the last few posts, but as concerns your original post, Beren, it made me think of a quote that goes something like this: "The glory of God is man fully alive."

I think true Christanity is the highest promoter of individualism.

We just started up a new group in our church called "Women in Christ". It's basically some women who have been Christians for awhile talking about various topics. I was asked to be on the leadership team, and after attending the preliminary meeting, I agreed to join, because I love how they're handling it - basically, "we know you ladies personally, we've seen your life and your love of God and others, and we'd like you to share your life experience and thoughts on various topics HOWEVER YOU WANT TO." They're leaving it totally up to us. We all went around and shared our backgrounds, and it is so cool to see all the diversity! Yet we all have in common the belief that Christianity as expressed in the Bible is the true state of the universe. Now one lady might share by telling funny stories, another by sharing a story that brings us to tears, another by singing some songs, another by more traditional teaching. We are being given total freedom, and the diversity, even within our common beliefs, is just glorious!

Anyway, just some thoughts on the subject of "religion and individualism". I think I'm seeing it at its best in this program. (and btw, Christians, please pray for me this Sunday - it's my turn to talk, and I'm a little nervous! )

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The speed limit is not a moral issue at all.

It may be: if speeding is wrong because it might lead to harming someone then it's a moral question for sure. Or maybe it's about following the rules for the greater good, which would be another kind of moral imperative. But you're right, it's mostly not moral as such, and serves to underline how morality and the law are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Charity is not an issue of morality - charity is an issue of empathy.

On the contrary, I would say that charity is the moral manifestation of empathy.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Also - morality isn't black or white. But "thou shalt not kill" is not wrong because it's an individual thing - it's wrong because we as a society say it's wrong.

Quite so. It's also not always wrong, unless you're a pacifist. So even not killing people has grey areas, as we know from many a thread.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

First of all, how can one say "Thou shalt not kill" is morally correct, and then go eat? Whether you're vegetarian or not, you're killing life to eat. The actual translation should be "thou shalt not murder."

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".

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

While yes, there are standards/bases of belief in each religion, they are all so open to interpretation, no two people agree on every single aspect.

Yes, you have the same point of view as I do: religion and individualism can perfectly co-exist.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Well, it depends what you mean by "universal morality". If you mean that somewhere there is some sort of spooky USB connection plugged into our souls feeding us universal morality, then I'd agree. But if you say that we have conceptions of a collective morality, then I'd agree.

What I mean is that there exists some absolute values (Platonic Forms, if you will) of Good and Evil out there and that by following one or the other people are "good" or "bad".

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Evil is different than morality though. Look at how many people in europe who threwout morality for the holocaust. If that isn't an example of societal morality - then I don't know what is. Millions and millions of Europeans during world war II saw nothing wrong with their neighbors being carted off, shot in the street or with them themselves turning in the "the dirty jew". And it wasn't just isolated to Germany. Anne Frank was in the Netherlands hiding out when her family was turned in.

That's a good point. It shows clearly the failings of what you call "societal morality" and further demonstrates the importance of individual morality. But my point is that religion is not "societal morality", it's not just some law that people subscribe into because it ensures the common good. Religion is, IMO, an expression of the needs and yearnings of the human soul and it is by this virtue that religion can express values that most of us can relate to; it is by this virtue that if one really is an introspective indivdual one shall be able to find religion within oneself (if you know what I mean).

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

But "thou shalt not kill" is not wrong because it's an individual thing - it's wrong because we as a society say it's wrong.

That kind of argument might work with other "moral" laws but it doesn't work with this particular one. "Thou shalt not kill" is a good moral law because our most primal instinct is that of survival: we don't want to die; so we respond to this law because it ensures our security against fellow humans.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It may be: if speeding is wrong because it might lead to harming someone then it's a moral question for sure. Or maybe it's about following the rules for the greater good, which would be another kind of moral imperative. But you're right, it's mostly not moral as such, and serves to underline how morality and the law are not the same thing.

By that argument - then the Autobahn should have a speed limit. The thing is - that it's to keep order and keep people safe that there is a speed limit. The same reason why there are traffic lights. It's not a moral issue - it's to make sure that there is order in the possible chaos. The autobahn doesn't need the speed limit in most areas (although I heard they were thinkif instituting one) because for the time it has been around - people have known the rules and the road was designed for speed. The police will crack down on anything though that disrupts that order - such as tailgating and such.

On the contrary, I would say that charity is the moral manifestation of empathy.

NO it's not - empathy is about feeling for someone and understanding their pain. It has nothing to do with morality.

Quite so. It's also not always wrong, unless you're a pacifist. So even not killing people has grey areas, as we know from many a thread.

But then also - doing nothing while millions are murdered is a moral issue. The thing is - Germany wasn't about the morality issue. Europe knew for years what was going on - it had to do with self preservation because they realized that Germany would overthrow them next. if hitler had just been happy to kill jews in his own country all of Europe would have been satisfied. Today it is viewed as a blackmark on Europe - but then why did so many people back then support or turn a blind eye to the killing?

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think true Christanity is the highest promoter of individualism.

I would venture to say that all religion promotes individualism. As I said above, religion is the human soul, so whatever it generates, we as individuals can respond to it.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The speed limit is not a moral issue at all.

Weren't you just saying that morality is defined by society? Society agreed that cars shall not exceed 100mph on highway such and such, so it's morally wrong for you to exceed this speed.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Quite so. It's also not always wrong, unless you're a pacifist. So even not killing people has grey areas, as we know from many a thread.

See my previous post.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

NO it's not - empathy is about feeling for someone and understanding their pain. It has nothing to do with morality

Empathy has nothing to do with morality but, as the Gaffer said, the "moral manifestation" of that is Charity. When you feel empathy for people you "moralize" (i.e. decide it's "good") to practice Charity with them (btw, I meant Charity as in Christian Charity, not as in giving out alms).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

That kind of argument might work with other "moral" laws but it doesn't work with this particular one. "Thou shalt not kill" is a good moral law because our most primal instinct is that of survival: we don't want to die; so we respond to this law because it ensures our security against fellow humans.

Instinctually though we don't want OURSELVES to die. it's that way in the animal kingdom too. Other animals - such as lions will kill each other for food if it is scarce or kill for territory, or will kill the babies of another father so he can induce the female to become furtile again and have his own cubs.

So individually - we are not looking at the survival of the human race - as much as we are looking at our own survival. It then manifests itself as the survival of the whole race.

I might be wrong in what you mean here - at first I thought you were saying that we have "shall not kill" to protect society. Now I think that you mean that the "shall not kill" is there because it was recognized that by having that - it might protect themselves.

Having said that - "cruelty to animals" is a moral issue. Whether we say that animals should not be tortured or not - has nothng to do with a fear of what they might do to us. We are the stronger species - because we have tools that make us that. But the morality of society says that we should not set an animal on fire alive and of course that goes then with particular animals more so than others. No one see anything wrong with setting out rat poison to kill a rat - but then see what the societies response will be if you did that with a dog or cat (even if there is a stray dog problem). Socity has again determined that it is morally okay to do certain things to certain beings under certain circumstances - but not to others. This is a societal judgement.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Instinctually though we don't want OURSELVES to die. it's that way in the animal kingdom too. Other animals - such as lions will kill each other for food if it is scarce or kill for territory, or will kill the babies of another father so he can induce the female to become furtile again and have his own cubs.

Yes, but we're not animals. It's socially impracticable that I impose a law stating that others shall not kill me, but not follow that same law myself. If I want to be safe from others by forbidding them to kill me, I should refrain from killing them as well. Some people don't realise that, that's why we have serial killers and people who kill their spouses to pick up the insurance money, etc...

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

"cruelty to animals" is a moral issue. Whether we say that animals should not be tortured or not - has nothng to do with a fear of what they might do to us. We are the stronger species - because we have tools that make us that. But the morality of society says that we should not set an animal on fire alive and of course that goes then with particular animals more so than others. No one see anything wrong with setting out rat poison to kill a rat - but then see what the societies response will be if you did that with a dog or cat (even if there is a stray dog problem). Socity has again determined that it is morally okay to do certain things to certain beings under certain circumstances - but not to others. This is a societal judgement.

Great! Finally, some meat for my original point
First and foremost, as you said, "life is referred top as human life and to extend it beyond that is pretty ridiculous". So "cruelty to animals" would be a subject of debate. It is an expression of our individualism that we choose to not torture a cat or to become vegetarian. That society has decided it's "wrong" to torture animals is, IMO, because some individuals have decided that and others (by virtue of their "herd instinct") subscribed into that vision. So here's the discussion question I propose: which is better following societal judgment concerning animal cruelty or finding that out for ourselves through observation and experience? I prefer choice two: religion says it's wrong to abuse and to be cruel; but whether or not that extends to other forms of life remains a point of debate. That's where individualism kicks in: decide for yourself according to your own character and morality ==> Religion allows for individualism.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No one see anything wrong with setting out rat poison to kill a rat

I beg to differ, a friend of mine finds it morally wrong to swat a mosquito.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Yes, but we're not animals. It's socially impracticable that I impose a law stating that others shall not kill me, but not follow that same law myself. If I want to be safe from others by forbidding them to kill me, I should refrain from killing them as well. Some people don't realise that, that's why we have serial killers and people who kill their spouses to pick up the insurance money, etc...

See - I believe we are animals - nothing more - except that we have a brain that allows us to reason. Athough - other animals also demonstrate this also.

Great! Finally, some meat for my original point
First and foremost, as you said, "life is referred top as human life and to extend it beyond that is pretty ridiculous". So "cruelty to animals" would be a subject of debate. It is an expression of our individualism that we choose to not torture a cat or to become vegetarian. That society has decided it's "wrong" to torture animals is, IMO, because some individuals have decided that and others (by virtue of their "herd instinct") subscribed into that vision. So here's the discussion question I propose: which is better following societal judgment concerning animal cruelty or finding that out for ourselves through observation and experience? I prefer choice two: religion says it's wrong to abuse and to be cruel; but whether or not that extends to other forms of life remains a point of debate. That's where individualism kicks in: decide for yourself according to your own character and morality ==> Religion allows for individualism.

I beg to differ, a friend of mine finds it morally wrong to swat a mosquito.

NJ has strict laws against animal cruelty. Society has determined that animal abuse is morally wrong - however - swatting a misquito isn't. There is individual moralty of course - just like all groups haev some individual thoughts. We are NOT the borg here. However - collectively - we have decided what is moral and not moral.

The Episcipal Church in the US said it was not morally wrong for homosexuals to become priests and has openly allowed it - while in Europe it was loudly denounced (i'm not sure what the mood is there now). This has caused people with different moral views to fight over this issue. Collectively they are deciding on the morality of the issue.

Until the revolution and particularly the civil war it was morally acceptable by society to own slaves - now we view it as reprehensible. 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.

At one time it was common practice for people to take a record, tape it and give it to their friends. Now all of a sudden it is "wrong" because the internet makes this practice so much more efficient. Why did people not think anything about taping a record, but now if I' rip a cd and share it with my friends or use a download program - I have to hear a speech about how that is stealing. What changed? Society changed.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

What I mean is that there exists some absolute values (Platonic Forms, if you will) of Good and Evil out there and that by following one or the other people are "good" or "bad".

Ah the old GOOD and EVIL topic... Always a fun time.

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

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

because life is referred top as human life and to extend it beyond that is pretty ridiculous. We set human life above animal or plant life.

who are 'we'?
i know human or animal is one and the same for me, and many others i know of.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

who are 'we'?
i know human or animal is one and the same for me, and many others i know of.

The general concensus of humans. We as a society have determined this. That is why there are zoos and aquariums. You will notice that there are no humans behind those bars. Maybe we can start to do that. Have a European exhibit, You know French, British, Germans - living in cages with a fake natural habitat.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

americans would prove a good exhibit, no offence

[Elemmírë]

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

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Yes, but we're not animals.

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

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

because life is referred top as human life and to extend it beyond that is pretty ridiculous. We set human life above animal or plant life.

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...