|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Why should it be democratic? You're correct that it probably will be defined that way, if only because large groups of people usually get what they want, but why ought it? Do you have a better idea? Democracy is intended not just to make the "will of the people" heard but also make their interest served, as eventually they will notice if a policy or principle is harmful to them.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
doverhog posted:Do you have a better idea? Democracy is intended not just to make the "will of the people" heard but also make their interest served, as eventually they will notice if a policy or principle is harmful to them. The point being very slowly excavated here is that the idea that that is a good and desirable thing is arbitrary. At its core.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Not really. If you poll a group of people, they will tell you ideas that let them live happy lives are good and desirable, and ones that don't are not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Not really. If you poll a group of people, they will tell you ideas that let them live happy lives are good and desirable, and ones that don't are not. And why should you care about that? At some point you are arguing that something is good, like, morally good, that requires you to pull a value judgement out of your arse. There's nothing wrong with doing that but it's weird to pretend you aren't doing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:You can't build a moral system without an irrational and arbitrary selection of values somewhere at the foundation, and to talk about "what works" and "what benefits all of society" as if it could be determined through pure reason rather than through moral judgment (which is subjective, unless you believe in an objective, external model for morality... which in turn is a hop, skip, and a jump from believing in God) would be either a mistake or an evasion. I don't think it's more complicated than recognizing that we share this rock and we have to find the best ways to live and thrive together. If we can agree that life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, pleasure is preferable to pain etc. we can work from there. Does this action benefit me and does it harm others? People can have different perspectives on different issues so we evaluate the evidence and use reasoned arguments to come to a consensus. It's not always simple and sometimes flawed evidence or our biases get in the way so it's key that we continuously try to improve on it and don't pretend we have found the perfect solution that will work forever and all time. Always question and try to do better - never accept authority without a reasoned justification.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And why should you care about that? I care about it because I want to live happy and with a good life. I do not argue that anything is morally good. I only argue that some things lead to good outcomes, and other things to bad outcomes. What is good or bad is measured by the people of the society I live in. For example, torture and murder are bad, love and good food are good. You can have a vote on that to see if it is right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
You don't care about things being morally good but you think things are bad and good... Do you... understand the concept of bad and good?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
No, tell me about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Like, to have a concept of bad and good you have to make a value judgement based on something in your head. It's inherently arbitrary, unless there actually is an absolute morality in the universe in which case it might not be, but there probably isn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
No, feelings are not based on value judgements. An infant will know it feels bad if you torture it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Unless you're arguing that humans are on the level of organisms exhibiting basic phototaxis, for example, there's a bit more to it than that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Do you have a better idea? Democracy is intended not just to make the "will of the people" heard but also make their interest served, as eventually they will notice if a policy or principle is harmful to them. My values are probably pretty close to yours; I'm an atheist and while I'm a squirrely, half-hearted utilitarian it's probably still the best description of how I think about goodness. That's not really the question, though -- the question is how we justify it. Personally I just take it on faith, so to speak, that it's a good thing for humans to exist and to be happy. This isn't a retreat into nihilism -- I think my ideas about what's good are great, and better than other people's ideas -- but I can't prove it, I just figured I ought to take personal responsibility for what I believe. (Even though that's more of an after-the-fact justification than a realistic description of how I got my values, for that matter.) Bates posted:I don't think it's more complicated than recognizing that we share this rock and we have to find the best ways to live and thrive together. If we can agree that life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, pleasure is preferable to pain etc. we can work from there. Does this action benefit me and does it harm others? People can have different perspectives on different issues so we evaluate the evidence and use reasoned arguments to come to a consensus. It's not always simple and sometimes flawed evidence or our biases get in the way so it's key that we continuously try to improve on it and don't pretend we have found the perfect solution that will work forever and all time. Always question and try to do better - never accept authority without a reasoned justification. None of this is alien or new to me, I'm just saying that the conflict between (for instance) humanism and Catholicism is primarily one of values, not the methods you use to get from those values to particular actions or rules. Atheists make irrational leaps based on biases or quirks of the mind all the time, and I've actually spent several pages over in the Christianity thread complaining (in a good-natured way) that many of their denominations and historical thinkers are way too quick to dismiss certain emotional and sensory parts of the human experience as a distraction from God.  doverhog posted:No, feelings are not based on value judgements. An infant will know it feels bad if you torture it. That the feeling you or I or that baby are experiencing is "bad" is a value judgment. It's one we're very well-equipped to make, and make quickly, but no less so for that. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
I do not posit any absolute morality, in fact I deny its existence. The only morality we have is some agreement we make; that torturing a baby is in fact bad; that it is better for people to live happy than die in agony. It is not absolute divine truth, it is a set of thoughts we agree to have together. If it's needed, let's vote on these principles, and after that is done we can go to rationally crafting policy to best achieve these goals. How can anyone be opposed to this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I do not posit any absolute morality, in fact I deny its existence. The only morality we have is some agreement we make; that torturing a baby is in fact bad; that it is better for people to live happy than die in agony. It is not absolute divine truth, it is a set of thoughts we agree to have together. If it's needed, let's vote on these principles, and after that is done we can go to rationally crafting policy to best achieve these goals. How can anyone be opposed to this? If nobody were ever opposed to it, we probably wouldn't need to vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
More seriously, some people would rather die for a cause they believe in than maximize their own happiness; some people think suffering can be ennobling or instructive and might be appropriate here and now even if the eventual goal is the total elimination of suffering. On a deeper level, people might think humility or gratitude or dignity or authenticity are more important than happiness. (Or that there are different kinds and grades of happiness, which is a whole different can of worms.) And that's not even getting into more procedural concerns like different definitions (is a fetus human?) or uncertainty (does gambling being legal make people more, or less happy?) or scope (even if we both want to maximize health and happiness, we're probably going to have different priorities if I'm trying to maximize happiness across an eternity in heaven vs. happiness in each mortal lifetime here on Earth.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:More seriously, some people would rather die for a cause they believe in than maximize their own happiness; some people think suffering can be ennobling or instructive and might be appropriate here and now even if the eventual goal is the total elimination of suffering. Yeah like if you define "happiness" naively the ultimate goal of utilitarianism would be to have everyone mainlining heroin with all their needs cared for by robots. Which is why Epicurus and other philosophers that define pleasure/happiness as the highest moral good have always emphasized ephemeral pleasures and sources of happiness over purely hedonistic ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
A lot of edge cases you are describing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
doverhog posted:A lot of edge cases you are describing. There's more of them than there are of us, so it's probably in our best interests to have a system that takes "edge cases" seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Secular morality doesn't offer a checklist you can go through to solve every moral dilemma - there's always exceptions and people value different things. There's no simple absolute truth, just the best systems we can manage. Sometimes we might even decide we were wrong and we have to do things differently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
I've been talking about principles, not real world political doctrine or organizing. My answer to the question of the thread is, "YES", and for good reason. It is not something to apologize for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
What are your principles doing if not translating to doctrine and organizing? Isn't that often the very criticism of religion in this thread — that despite whatever principles we see such and such negative practice?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
The criticism is that religion, in general (though Christianity in America in specific) transmits awful morals. Religion is bad not because it provides a moral framework but because the moral framework being provided is demonstrably poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The criticism is that religion, in general (though Christianity in America in specific) transmits awful morals. Even without criticizing the framework, Christian morality in particular is at odds with secular morality at the level of base assumptions of reward. The goal, for secular morality, is that moral behavior is rewarded with a happy life. Christian morality, on the other hand, is still focused on its founding as a Roman death cult, where one should bear all sorts of privation and unhappiness in life in exchange for a reward in the afterlife.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey Raspar's the one demanding media publications not post articles that are semi positive about someones religious experiences. I also like how the reaction to repressive secular regimes was entirely the result of foreign intervention. I mean its not like trying to destroy a peoples way of life can produce a reaction at all. Look I just find it funny how the arch secularists like to pretend that these middle eastern regimes were not very repressive or anything. Why do you keep insinuating I said don't run anything positive about religion? I said to treat it as a human interest story, and not present as respectable political pundits. That's not demanding no newspaper ever run something positive about religion. No one is pretending that there haven't been secular dictators and oppression. The issue is that secular leaders and governments are far less likely to be oppressive than religious ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Yeah the fact you get mad that its human interest proves my point. maybe some people could find something from the Buddhist monks. You might not, but others might> As long as their not going to die what do you care if some people decide to become spiritual because of a dumb liberal newspaper story? Also respectable political pundits? Like you know that the reason some poo poo head like Huckabeee gets respect isn't because he's religious right? Its because the whole neoliberal truth is in the middle ideas that pervade journalism. Also  at secular leaders not being repressive. I don't even need to explain the because anyone with knowledge of the twentieth century knows thats horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Kleos aphthiton
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:one should bear all sorts of privation and unhappiness in life This is true, though privation and unhappiness will come regardless of one's decision to bear it. In fact, resistance can make them worse! quote:in exchange for a reward in the afterlife. Worse, even: bearing wrongs, forgiving trespasses, suffering well, offers reward in this very life by conforming us to Christ. One who suffers well doesn't sigh, "Ah, but in the afterlife things will be great," but meets Christ in that suffering here and now. This doesn't mean we don't avoid pain where it is unnecessary, that we don't actively try to reduce others' burdens, but rain will fall on the just and unjust alike, and we should be prepared to meet it in love.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:This is true, though privation and unhappiness will come regardless of one's decision to bear it. In fact, resistance can make them worse! Yes, this has relevance to modern Christianity in America. You see it all the time in such prominent Christians such as <empty set>.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Well, nobody with Joel Osteen on speed dial, that's for drat sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:This is true, though privation and unhappiness will come regardless of one's decision to bear it. In fact, resistance can make them worse! That all sounds nice. The moment you stray to the side of opposing a thing like abortion or stem cell research, it is no longer nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Yes, this has relevance to modern Christianity in America. You see it all the time in such prominent Christians such as <empty set>. John Lewis comes to mind. There are others, too, but they don't get as big of a microphone from the media as crazy rightists, because people who say sane things aren't as good for ratings as people who say batshit crazy things. It also helps that the level of systematic suffering and oppression in the U.S. is low relative to a lot of other places on Earth (which does not minimize the need to right the injustices in American society, of course). When you go to places like South Africa, though, you find people like Desmond Tutu, who suffered well through Apartheid. When you go to places like El Salvador, you find heirs to Oscar Romero. Liberation theology isn't dead; it's just clawing its way back into the spotlight. Bolocko posted:This is true, though privation and unhappiness will come regardless of one's decision to bear it. In fact, resistance can make them worse! I just wanted to say that this is really beautifully written, well done. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
I've bracketed off minority churches. In America, the most segregated hour is on Sunday. Black churches and mosques welcome leftism so leftists love black churches and mosques. They still tend to vote more conservatively than their nonreligious counterparts, suggesting that religion remains a poison. But it's a lesser poison for now and we can tackle it at a later date. But what does that have to do with the role of religion in American politics? After all, there are plenty of reasons for black folks to favor leftist programs irrespective of religion. Man makes god in their own image, so you get something more amenable to leftism. The 11% of non-religious African Americans vote more-or-less in line with their religious brethren and Muslims, the rainbow of Protestantism, Catholics, etc. all also vote as a racial block. It's almost like religion is a poor marker for this group since it doesn't mean anything. Who knew?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah the fact you get mad that its human interest proves my point. maybe some people could find something from the Buddhist monks. You might not, but others might> As long as their not going to die what do you care if some people decide to become spiritual because of a dumb liberal newspaper story? Also respectable political pundits? Like you know that the reason some poo poo head like Huckabeee gets respect isn't because he's religious right? Its because the whole neoliberal truth is in the middle ideas that pervade journalism. Also I'm not mad that it's human interest? I specifically said it should be covered like weird little interesting clubs/activities that are non-religious. It doesn't have to be negative coverage, just not given the same weight as actual experts. That's exactly what I was arguing for. Religious leaders are brought on the news all the god drat time to give their hot takes and spiritual "wisdom" on matters. Here's a media matters article from way back in 2004, where religious figures shaped the media narrative following the election. We don't need to give religious leaders an incredibly loud megaphone to shape politics. To make it worse, these same figures are shielded from serious criticism because it's not "respectful" or it's a "spiritual matter" or "spiritual perspective". It's a detriment to reasoned political coverage and should be curtailed. Of course there are going to be some exceptions like religious leaders so large they have governmental powers either in practice or in actuality. The Pope is technically the head of a (small) country for example, and the Dalai Lama is a combo political/religious figure as well. There are also religious leaders that might be actual experts in specific policy, science, history, or whatever. These exceptions are few and far between though, it's usually ideologues. I have to reiterate, I am not advocating we ban newspapers from covering anything, I'm saying we should make a cultural push for limiting their soapboxes. If you think the shithead Republicans don't get an extra respect bump because of their Bible thumping, you've got another thing coming. Here's a (lol) Newsmax article where half of the first 20 "Top 100 Christian Leaders in America" are shithead conservative Republicans, including Huckabee. The religious right absolutely gives them insane amount of respect, and that respect bleeds into the general public. They are "Good upstanding Christians", that's what they are branded as as and a significant portion of not rabidly right wing Americans believe it. My parents are incredibly moderate Christians, they don't even go to Church at all, but they still consider the Republicans in general to be the moral, Christian party and always vote R (though abstained from voting for Trump at least). You do realize almost all of us hate neoliberalism too and want to see it gone, right? It's practically destroyed the Democrats and is incompatible with even a moderately progressive agenda. And of course there are oppressive atheist leaders. Just like there are a lot of nonoppressive religious leaders. No one is claiming that secularism automatically makes people tolerant and progressive. Nor does being religious automatically make people intolerant and repressive. The issue is how susceptible they make people to being either more progressive or more conservative. The evidence points towards religion being a catalyst for conservatism, and secularism being a catalyst for progressivism. This is an objectively bad thing, because conservatives vote in policies and leaders that gently caress over so many people, including themselves. Conservatives are also terrible on environmental issues, and climate change is a serious problem affecting the entire human population. A push for secularism can aid in saving millions of lives over the next few decades from climate change alone. Do you actually have any counter evidence that religions in general make people more progressive, or even that their effect is neutral? If you do that's good because religions can be symbiotic to governments and society. If not than religions will always be a drawback on society and should be moved away from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
doverhog posted:That all sounds nice. The moment you stray to the side of opposing a thing like abortion or stem cell research, it is no longer nice. Are those really the hills you want to die on? Besides, there are secular arguments and atheists against abortion. A minority, sure, but what are you going to do about them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Are those really the hills you want to die on? Besides, there are secular arguments and atheists against abortion. A minority, sure, but what are you going to do about them? Tell them to gently caress off. I'm not a huge fan myself, but I'm a man. My reservations do not loving matter unless the child in question is mine, and I do not have any right to force a woman to carry a child to term just because I want her to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Imagine all the cool poo poo we could have had in the medical field if stem research wasn't a religious issue & an issue (coupled with abortion) so polarizing that it decided the fate of several presidencies
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
How many atheist anti-abortion people are there anyways? Pew says 87% of atheists favor legal abortion That's higher than even the non-affiliated group at 78%. The only group that's not majority in favor of legal abortion is white Evangelical Protestants. Even Catholics are 54/42 in favor of legal abortion. Religious opposition is like 98%+ the driving force behind public and legal abortion opposition. I'd bet most of the atheist anti-choice rear end in a top hat on tv/print is a paid conservative shill like S.E. Cupp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Being hostile to religion is stupid. It's like being hostile to a language.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Being hostile to religion is stupid. It's like being hostile to a language. It really isn't. For one, syllables aren't known for spying in the name of fascists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:34
|
|
