posted
Why is it necessary to measure morality? Especially when there is not an agreement on what "moral" means.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, if we're talking about organizations that purport to encourage moral behavior, it is important to consider the behavior of the membership when assessing these claims.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah. 'Higher', then, means 'more difficult to live up to'. I must say I do not see that as a worthwhile goal, so who cares?
And that's why you don't understand.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh? What possible standard could you apply otherwise? And what standard are you using to choose your church, which presumably you feel is better for you than all the other possible churches?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, Could you explain why? To me, the claim "We are superior in encouraging people to behave better." is reasonably tested by looking to see if the people actually behave better than people not in the group. Of course, if the people in the group started out worse than the people outside of it, it would not necessarily be a fair comparison, but that's something that could, to a certain extent, also be examined.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Indeed? You have perhaps your own definition of godless?
quote:Does that mean all God-less people are rotten?
God-less, as I wrote it, does not mean aetheist. There are plenty of people who know nothing about God or religion who have not made a conscience effort to not believe. What I wrote, which you conveniently snipped out, was :
quote: And I see plenty of rotten people who know nothing about God. Does that mean all God-less people are rotten?
Taken in conext, what I meant was people who have no knowledge or relationship with God. If he was going to paint those people who are religious as immoral because of the actions of a few who claim to be religious, is it right for me to paint those who aren't religious as rotten people because of a few who don't know of God and are rotten?
Aethiests are people who don't believe and chose not to believe. They are not necessarily God-less.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realise that coming from me this may look like just plain insults, but I do not mean it so. It looks to me as though we've reached the point where the theists simply refuse to think about the discussion anymore, retreating instead into "You don't understand" and cryptic little one-liners that do not mean anything. (This, incidentally, is precisely why I think religion is dehumanising: Any time you refuse to think about a problem, you are retreating into your animal past, away from Homo sapiens.) Now, I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but you lot are not doing well at it. Show your working, as my math teacher would say.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, are you saying that religions don't claim to encourage moral behavior in their followers? Or that they don't claim to be better at doing so than not being in the religion?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: kat, Could you explain why? To me, the claim "We are superior in encouraging people to behave better." is reasonably tested by looking to see if the people actually behave better than people not in the group. Of course, if the people in the group started out worse than the people outside of it, it would not necessarily be a fair comparison, but that's something that could, to a certain extent, also be examined.
No one says they are superior. Just that you are expected to live up to a standard that the church sets. And that standard is different, more restrictive, higher, whatever, than that of society. No one can possibly ever live up to God's perfection, but that's why they go to church. And certainly many people don't live up to that. It does not invalidate the message, or goal, or work of that church.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, are you saying that religions don't claim to encourage moral behavior in their followers? Or that they don't claim to be better at doing so than not being in the religion?
I am saying and have said neither. I will not defend your misinterpretations.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aethiests are people who don't believe and chose not to believe. They are not necessarily God-less.
Dude, do I mis-spell 'catholic' at every opportunity? At any rate, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god. Period. Please do try not to make up your own terminology, it makes conversing with you very confusing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. But what I'm saying is that people who aren't in your religion on average behave better in many ways than people who are in it. And this, to me, is significant when it comes down to considering whether I should view the religion favorably or not.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eh? What possible standard could you apply otherwise?
I would think that if you are trying to determine what leader to follow, it is wiser to judge this based on the behavior of the leader rather than the behavior of the other people following that leader.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are responsible for your own views and are welcome to think what you want. You are mistaken about a great many things, though. If you want judge, continue on. If you want to understand, you're asking the wrong questions.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would think that if you are trying to determine what leader to follow, it is wiser to judge this based on the behavior of the leader rather than the behavior of the other people following that leader.
Really? I'd think that it would be wise to look at what the likely effect on you (or let's say your loved one who is joining the organization) would have, which is much more strongly predicted by the behavior of the followers.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And that standard is different, more restrictive, higher, whatever, than that of society.
There is a large difference between "more restrictive" and "higher". It changes the school analogy to being one that requires a blue high school diploma and one that requires an aqua-marine diploma. Using measurable GPAs makes your analogy about which one is better moreso than illustrating the differences between the two like you are saying was your intent.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
errr...that wasn't nasty. You are behaving childishly and I've decided that engaging you is a waste of time. It is possible to point out your poor behavior without being nasty, which is what I tried to do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I realise that coming from me this may look like just plain insults, but I do not mean it so. It looks to me as though we've reached the point where the theists simply refuse to think about the discussion anymore, retreating instead into "You don't understand" and cryptic little one-liners that do not mean anything. (This, incidentally, is precisely why I think religion is dehumanising: Any time you refuse to think about a problem, you are retreating into your animal past, away from Homo sapiens.) Now, I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but you lot are not doing well at it. Show your working, as my math teacher would say.
This is why you do not understand. If you don't believe that living to the standard I describe as 'higher' is worthwhile, how do I continue to discuss this with you? There is no common ground for understanding. It's not a matter of proving anything to you. As long as you do not see that having more restrictions on behaviors as being a higher standard of morality, you will not understand. But when it comes down to it, that's all morals are. Restrictions on behavior. Otherwise we run around doing whatever suits us best, whatever selfish desires or reasons or whatever feels better without regard to others or ourselves. My contention is there are more restrictions on my behaviors and beliefs as a catholic than the average person in society who is not catholic. And I try to live up to these as best as possible. That doesn't mean if other catholics don't, it makes the moral standards of the church wrong.
If you disagree that it's not worth subjecting yourself to these other standards because they are part of your belief in God, because you don't see a belief in God as valid, there is no way to discuss this with you. Because you will always disagree, no matter what I say.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:ETA: Or, in a slightly less formal vernacular: Ha! You cracked and were nasty first! You lose!
Quite honestly, I think you were being quite nasty with your sullenly un-communicative, passive-aggressive, defensive little one-liners.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aethiests are people who don't believe and chose not to believe. They are not necessarily God-less.
Dude, do I mis-spell 'catholic' at every opportunity? At any rate, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god. Period. Please do try not to make up your own terminology, it makes conversing with you very confusing.
I'm not making any terminology up. You're reading into what I'm saying based on your biases.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Dude, do I mis-spell 'catholic' at every opportunity?
No, you have other words you like to deliberately misspell.
And I doubt stihl's misspelling was deliberate. People have trouble spelling atheist -- it has too many vowels squished together, and it violates several usual patterns. (I recommend a spell-checker.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And that standard is different, more restrictive, higher, whatever, than that of society.
There is a large difference between "more restrictive" and "higher". It changes the school analogy to being one that requires a blue high school diploma and one that requires an aqua-marine diploma. Using measurable GPAs makes your analogy about which one is better moreso than illustrating the differences between the two like you are saying was your intent.
No it doesn't. I used the term higher because the standards of my religion are higher than those of society. The nit pickers have picked at it and tried to read into my usage, forcing me to change everything I say so I don't have to argue every little damned point, much like I'm doing here now. If my church has a list of standards that is 10 points long, and society has 3, then the standards of my church are higher. Some people might see it as more restrictive, some people want to read into everything you say. Frankly I'm tired of these inconsequential arguments by people who read their own biases into what I'm saying when I've gone to great lengths to not put those very biases into my discussions. It's counterproductive, and the reason why discussions of any type about religion usually get sidetracked, by the same few people, I might add.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From an outside perspective, it went like this:
S: I think we shouldn't argle the blargle. K: But argling the blargle is like nosruffing the nastrud. S: But if it were like nosruffing the nastrud, that would imply that people who argle the blargle smippen the schemken, since people who nosruff the nastrud smippen the schemken. Are you saying that blargle-arglers smippen schemken? K: Don't put words in my mouth. S: But.... <repeat> S: You're being silly and unproductive! K: I win!
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Dude, do I mis-spell 'catholic' at every opportunity?
No, you have other words you like to deliberately misspell.
And I doubt stihl's misspelling was deliberate. People have trouble spelling atheist -- it has too many vowels squished together, and it violates several usual patterns. (I recommend a spell-checker.)
Oh, I didn't realize I was really misspelling atheist. Sorry.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If my church has a list of standards that is 10 points long, and society has 3, then the standards of my church are higher.
No. The standards of your church are more restrictive. They are not higher.
(By the same token, atheists by definition are godless, but may in fact be believers. You've got your definition reversed.)
Let me give you an example:
COLLEGE A1 admits only students with a 4.33 GPA who've scored better than a 1560 on the SAT.
COLLEGE B1 admits only students with a 2.13 GPA who've scored better than a 1150 on the SAT, who have read at least one book in their lifetime, and can hop on one foot with their eyes closed.
Whose standards are "higher?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When used to describe KoM, it might be appropriate. He's certainly athier than most of us, if not the athiest. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with trying to compare religious morality with non-religious morality is that often times religious morals take into consideration information that may not be available or accepted by unbelievers.
Take the example of abortion. Would people's opinion of abotion change at all if there was in fact an actual soul being extinguished each time an abortion occurred? Of course, even non-religious people can still believe in a supernatural or metaphysical soul, which would probably affect their ideas of morality and ethics. In either case, those morals depend on information that cannot be scientifically or universally accepted.
---
The value of certain morals and the effectiveness of their implementation are separate issues and the merit of these should be judged independently.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had thought of atheism as something that was the default belief for many people. "Well, I don't believe in Christianity, I don't believe in Islam, and I don't believe in Judaism, so I guess I'm atheist." For the atheists I know, they are atheists because religion is a nonissue to them. No one ever tried to make them believe in God, so they don't. Therefore, they wouldn't feel the need to jump up and defend atheism; they just don't care. Maybe they DO care, and I'm just not aware of it; but I have never had this conversation with an atheist before and was not expecting them to be defensive. Forgive me; I had never met anyone (or was aware of anyone) who saw atheism as a strong, important belief. Now I know.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As long as you do not see that having more restrictions on behaviors as being a higher standard of morality, you will not understand. (...) But when it comes down to it, that's all morals are. Restrictions on behavior.
I agree that it is a higher standard in the sense of having more restrictions. I do not agree that this sense of higher is a better, more moral standard. We might agree that morals can take the form of restrictions on behaviour, a list of 'thou shalts' and 'thou shalt nots'. But I think that saying this is all they are is to lose track of the purpose of the restrictions, which is to live good lives, and make it possible for others to do the same. The restrictions are not there for their own sake.
For example, I would assume that you do not keep kosher, and you also do not observe the Moslem restrictions on alcohol. Both of these religions, then, have a 'higher' standard than yours. I myself observe a form of morality in which I'm required to make a snarky post in every religious thread on Hatrack; not an easy task, let me tell you, especially since I also have to make a jabbering noise every time I do so. Do these restrictions mean my morality is 'higher' than yours? Clearly they do, by the standard you've given. I leave it up to you to consider whether it's a good standard.
In short, I think you have succumbed to precisely that flaw in Catholicism that caused the Reformation in the first place: A systemic commitment to form at the expense of function.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I used the term higher because the standards of my religion are higher than those of society. The nit pickers have picked at it and tried to read into my usage, forcing me to change everything I say so I don't have to argue every little damned point, much like I'm doing here now. If my church has a list of standards that is 10 points long, and society has 3, then the standards of my church are higher.
See, I don't think this is an inconsequential discussion. Asserting that your religion has higher standards than the soceital norm sounds to me, and many others appearantly, like you're saying that your faith is superior. You've already told us that isn't what you mean and I'm trying to explain why what you're saying is being interpreted in the way it is. Higher in the way that you are using it represents a qualitative, not quantitative, measurement. You can't say that your religion has higher standards because there are more of them because that's quantitative and that's not how the word is used when describing standards.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If my church has a list of standards that is 10 points long, and society has 3, then the standards of my church are higher.
No. The standards of your church are more restrictive. They are not higher.
(By the same token, atheists by definition are godless, but may in fact be believers. You've got your definition reversed.)
No, because I wrote God-less. Not a godless. You can be God-less, meaning having the lack of knowledge of God, the one you capitolize and refer to in Christianity, and not be a non-believer in that God. That doesn't mean you're an atheist, who choses to not believe in that God, or any god. There are many God-less people who find God and become believers, who were never atheists. And the point I was making, you can't lump all of the behaviors of God-less people together and paint them with a broad stroke, just like you can't do the same for religious people.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] Let me give you an example:
COLLEGE A1 admits only students with a 4.33 GPA who've scored better than a 1560 on the SAT.
COLLEGE B1 admits only students with a 2.13 GPA who've scored better than a 1150 on the SAT, who have read at least one book in their lifetime, and can hop on one foot with their eyes closed.
Whose standards are "higher?"
It depends on what you value. Do you value the gpa, or the other stuff? If I value the GPA and sat scores, college a1 is higher.
I place value on the restrictive nature of some of the church's expectations. The don't expect you to be a baby murder and take part in abortion. That to me is a higher moral standard.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:College B. Do you know how hard it is to hop on one foot with your eyes closed?
You know, after I posted that, I immediately thought, "Rivka's going to post something to make me regret not having specified academic standards."
quote:If I value the GPA and sat scores, college a1 is higher.
Right. So you're conceding what other people have been trying to get you to admit -- that you're claiming that your religious-based morality is superior.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You misunderstand my motives and my posts.
Fine! So explain the buggers, or go away and leave us the hell alone! If you're not going to actually say anything, why are you even bothering to post?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I agree that it is a higher standard in the sense of having more restrictions. I do not agree that this sense of higher is a better, more moral standard.
I NEVER SAID THEY WERE BETTER!!
This is why talking to you about this is impossible, you don't pay attention to what I'm saying. You're just determine to argue against your biases.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
