|
It's good when it motivates people to pursue a positive justice in the world, bad when it inhibits that.
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
I mean ultimately, leftism tends to be concerned with material issues, whereas religion tends to be concerned with moral or spiritual ones. Which means there's a degree of conflict that's sort of inevitable when religion leads people to put secondary importance on the material in favour of the moral or spiritual. To the extent that religion informs people's position on the material it can be concordant with the poltiical left, but to the degree both that it encourages people to dismiss the material and that it promotes a material position contrary to the left, it's going to be in conflict. It is certainly easier for religion to be in conflict with the left than in concert with it, but it is not an inherent issue with it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Axelgear posted:Aren't material issues ultimately moral ones? I mean, I can define "Caring about water access for Native tribes" as a material issue, but is the ultimate drive not a moral one? Is there any situation where a moral issue doesn't have some material consequence? I suppose I am arguing consequentialism vs rule-based ethics. Religion trends towards rule-based and the rules tend to be what they are because they've always been that. While, say, Marx would probably be a rather strong consequentialist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Individual rights and freedoms are very much one of the core tenants of being a liberal, on the "Left". Individual rights and freedoms are a major source of the difference between liberalism and the left.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
I mean the religious apologist would probably argue that everyone is equally obligated not to do gay stuff. I don't really think that is well characterized as an equality issue. People deserve to be happy, and may have unequal requirements to facilitate that. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Which again highlights the conflict between consequential and rule based ethics. One could believe that people are either equally obligated to follow the rules or equally entitled to a particular outcome. Different rules produce the same outcome, the same rules produce different outcomes. Framing it as just an "equality" issue without addressing that conflict is rather reductionist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Or we could have rules that don't deliberately exclude people. Because the topic of the thread is conflict between religion and leftist politics, which merits an analysis of the different motivations and goals of each? "Hey why don't you just change all of your rules because my consequentialist ethics say you should and we won't have a problem what's so bad about that?" is completely ignoring the point of religious rules.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Well broadly most of the religions you're likely to have much to do with work on the principle that there's a God and that God wants you to do things a certain way. And that doing things that way will bring you spiritual benefits which far outweigh your material concerns in your day to day life. I assume you're familiar with that concept at least. So someone who believes that is going to look at the world through that lens. So if you tell them about the importance of equality, they'll probably be more concerned with people's equal ability to follow those divinely inspired rules and receive their spiritual reward. The concept of material equality of outcome is not the same as just the concept of "equality", it's quite specific and requires a quite specific worldview in order to derive from just the concept of "equality". Some religious traditions do adopt a more liberation focused materialist position but not all. However I would venture that that... interventionist tradition is probably still motivated by moral rules, not consequentialist ethics. Essentially it is quite possible to approach a practical leftist platform from either consequentialism or rule-based ethics, even religiously motivated ones. It depends really on the specific beliefs you hold. The primary religious opposition to leftism is far more found in the prosperity gospel types than anything else and that's not a problem with them being religious, it's a problem that adherents of that ideology are adopting a deliberately constructed religiously themed post-hoc justification for conservative politics. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
zh1 posted:How do I argue with someone who is chasing spiritual benefits, when that's all they care about and I'm not god, so I can't manifest any argument that's going to supersede those spiritual benefits? Do you want me to cover myself with chicken blood when I ask them to treat unbelievers as people? I don't know, how do you reason with someone who has no moral absolutes and is clearly one step away from murdering everyone around them if the fancy takes them because what would inhibit them?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
zh1 posted:I'm asking you how to argue with insane people And I'm trying to suggest that perhaps utilizing a degree of non-consequentialist ethics isn't actually a form of completely alienating insanity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
zh1 posted:How do I argue with someone when I don't share their view of the creator, if we're going to allow creator-inspired arguments into the fold? Easy question. The same way you argue with anybody who doesn't share 100% of your premises...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Are you... actually a libertarian?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Then are you a consequentialist?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
"Off your medication" is not the same as dadaism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I literally have no idea what you are on about. Conflict exists between the left and religion because religion often decides to poo poo on minorities, gay marriage is a case in point. You suggest an analysis of different motivations. I mean maybe there's also people who think that God just really hates buggery and that you'll go to hell if you do it and that no matter how much fun dick in the butt might be it's better in the long run if you don't do it. I'm fairly sure that churches don't hand out waxed moustaches for their congregations to twirl because they get to be so delightfully evil today. Like it's possible for someone to be wrong without them also a Saturday morning cartoon villain. People can be wrong in good faith. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
I think that's a more specifically American problem and its propensity for having particularly deranged protestant sects in it.BattleMoose posted:And if the religious folk kept their religious views and rules how to live to themselves, we wouldn't have an issue. And until that happens, religious folk imposing their religious rules on society at large, must be opposed. That makes absolutely no sense if they believe that their position is correct and the way to ensure the most meaningful welfare for everyone. By that logic they should legitimately be able to say that your godlessness is damning people to hell and you must be silenced... That someone does not use the same ethical system as you is a really lovely basis for arguing for or against their representation especially from a consequentialist perspective because a consequentialist should not care why someone does a thing, only that they do... OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, Roman Catholicism has certainly never worked against leftists on a societal level by collaborating with fascist regimes, nor would they ever speak out about cherished rights like a woman's right to an abortion, or the rights of gay people to get married and adopt kids. That was in reference to the assertion that Protestantism was a death cult..? I didn't say Catholicism was good. But classifying "Protestantism" as, well, anything coherent is a bit silly given that it incorporates wildly divergent political and theological perspectives. As, to be honest, does Catholicism to a surprising degree.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Except you... aren't keeping them to yourself, you're saying that society should not enforce the rules that your opponents believe are integral to the long term wellbeing of everybody in the world... You essentially appear to be arguing that consequentialism is an absolutely correct moral system and in the same breath complaining about your opponents' adherence to an absolute concept of morality...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I once lamented to a Christian friend of mine who is quite the historian that Early Christianity was so interesting with all its divergent sects and not even a real canon. He countered by saying there are probably far, far more different denominations of Christians today with an even grater range of ideas and interpretations than there ever was in the first couple centuries after Jesus' death. I'm inclined to agree now I've read up a bit more. For all that Protestantism trends towards the weird and wonderful the more liturgical traditions have the benefit of a thousand plus years of theological literature to draw on so if you want to you can probably find justification for any position you want in almost any denomination.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I am keeping my religious views to myself. I have not once shared my religion or encourage people to change their religious views. I am not encouraging anyone to share in my godlessness. I think possibly "do not allow your religious views to motivate your actions and also society should be structured according to my belief that your religious views should not be represented" might be a bit of a nudge in a particular theological direction?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:So, since you're probably smart enough to understand this, imagine for a minute that "left/right" is not simply a matter of where one's opinions are on social matters, but in fact is traditionally very much associated with economics. There are many leftists who are/were very socially conservative, but we would still call them leftists - many of the Soviets, for instance, or Castro, or Saint Archbishop Romero. This also is important, social issues like LGBT rights are traditionally a liberal position, not a left one. The two are often lumped together nowadays and there is no reason for them to be opposed, but they are not, traditionally, a package deal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
That's kind of like saying "I respect your right to religious freedom except I don't think you should be allowed to have your secular views at all represented in our laws and society, just keep them to yourself." Which is to say, I don't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:That is literally exactly the opposite of what I am saying. It is exactly your SECULAR views which should be represented in our laws and society. "Religion not allowed" is a religious position. It makes absolutely no sense to say that you are in favor of religious freedom while also saying that the only religious position that should be represented in law is your own preferred religious position, which is the absence of religion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Religion is allowed, its the very definition of religious freedom. What you don't get to do is force your religious views or rules on others, its this part that you are really struggling with. Rejection of religion is a religious position... If you are looking to construct a secular society that is a religious position. You don't get to opt out of the whole subject and declare yourself above it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
I'm looking at it from the perspective that you are proposing that what appears to be your theological perspective should be the legal basis for society, and that this will materially hinder people with different theological perspectives from getting their views represented on what constitutes a society that looks after its citizens. And you're arguing that this is different from when another theological perspective does that. You're saying, essentially, that materialism is the only valid theological position, that it's the only one we can use to structure our society, and then trying to claim that this isn't a theological position. That makes no sense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:SECULAR LAWS, do you understand what secular means?! By exclusion of every alternative, it means materialistic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
Your demand for secular laws is a religious perspective therefore it makes absolutely no sense to try and claim it as an absolutely correct position, above criticism from an opposing religious perspective. I mean bloody hell if you need to pretend that atheism is an absolute moral truth then why do you even bother believing it? What is the point of atheism if not to make you a complete moral relativist?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:It's a common mistake that people try to link the lack of religious belief to being a religious belief into itself. It also requires a rejection of the idea that there is anything to the world beyond the observable and material. Which is an idea you have been exposed to if you live basically anywhere on earth. It is a decision, insomuch as anything is a decision, to construct your entire worldview based on material perception, which most definitely is a belief system, it is simply based on a different reference than a religious one. Secular laws use materialist concepts of empathy, compassion and reason. Secularism, by excluding all non-materialistic positions, is by necessity a materialist position.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
If you want to argue that materialism is more correct than spriritualism I'm not going to argue, but I do require that you recognize that that is a relative position, just because I agree with it doesn't make it absolute.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:It absolutely does not require blanket objection, it just requires evidence. If magic spells were demonstrated to be effective, and even linked to praying to a god or some sort of ether or whatever magical things happened, that would be accepted. It starts from a different set of premises and works from there under its preferred method of reasoning, it is neither particularly more closed or open minded than any other theological position.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:yeah, it's pretty objectively bad. if the only reason you help people is because of fear, you are a bad person. From a consequentialist perspective you literally aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Unless you believe in magic a person who does good things is good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Bates posted:If someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to donate to a good cause against your will you become a better person? Yes? Again the only way that rule based ethics works is if you believe in something other than observable reality, if someone causes material improvements to the world then by any observation-based metric they are a positive force in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:This is an inherently baseless, absurd claim that you haven't provided any argument for whatsoever. What do you propose is the basis for caring about the immaterial intent of the actor over the effects of their actions?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:But nobody is disputing the merit of the actions and effects. We're all happy to call those good. If someone wants to be thought virtuous for doing them, though, they have to have had a virtuous motive in doing them (e.g. benevolence), because that is what virtuous means. One does not have to care more about virtue than results to see that they are merely different things. If someone cares about virtue then I would suggest they've got some aspect of their worldview rather firmly planted in spiritualism. I didn't say people were virtuous, I said they were good. If you're bothered about whether someone adheres to your personally preferred rules then that's between you and whatever you get those rules from but it has very little place in a materialist philosophy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Virtuous is what 'good' usually means, when it is used of people. I don't know why you think spiritualism has to be involved. Are you actually denying that people have intentions at all? They have intentions but they are immaterial beyond the degree to which they effect a particular outcome. Like, literally immaterial. If you're espousing a philosophy based on observable, material reality then intent really should not matter to you other than as a vehicle to effect particular actions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:The number three is 'literally immaterial', but I'm not going to chuck arithmetic out of the window. And while I would concur that a conscious commitment towards material good is a good basis for ensuring materially good actions, the context of the initial question was whether or not someone who does materially good things is a good person or not, based on their method of arriving at those actions. Which, again, is a profoundly silly way of looking at it from a materialist point of view.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:The obvious issue is that if the positive intent of the person doing good things is based entirely on an intellectual construct and not inherent empathy, that necessarily implies that if that construct were to change or be dismantled, the person would be capable of monstrous acts. If a homicidal sociopath has created an intellectual strategy for dealing with their condition, it's entirely fair to remain extremely wary around them. They may become a "good person", until their strategy lapses or changes and all hell breaks loose. They are not inherently good. They are evil, wallpapered over. That's completely absurd, if I took your mind apart and replaced your values with other values then you would also become destructive... Unless you believe in some sort of good or evil soul that's assigned to you at birth then people are as they affect the world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Yes, and since 'good' when applied to people means virtuous, having a virtue, such as benevolence or generosity or courage, the intent matters. This is completely consistent with materialism, unless you want to claim that their intentions arise from something other than their brains. It really doesn't mean that unless you subscribe to virtue ethics.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Which part of this is confusing for you? Empathy as an inherent, evolved human trait, or the concept of sociopathy as an aberrant condition? What?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 19:55
|
|