Entry 1701, on 2015-02-09 at 22:03:16 (Rating 4, Comments)
Do people have the right to be wrong? Do they have the right to anything? Do rights even exist? I guess it all comes back to definitions again, as is often the case. Some people will equate rights back to objective morality and therefore claim the requirement for a "moral source" (which is usually whatever their personal interpretation of god might be) but I tend to be a little bit more flexible and rational about it.
A right is an entitlement granted by society which a person (or other conscious entity) has which any reasonable person would consider to be essential to being able to live a full and productive life (here I use the word "productive" in the general sense, not just meaning economic productivity).
Clearly there is room for disagreement on what rights of this type should be but that is the case whatever your source. If you want to believe rights are bestowed by a god then there are problems in choosing the correct god and in interpreting that god's true meaning. We see this all the time, and I would say that is because gods don't really exist and people are trying to interpret something created by humans with no deeper meaning.
I often get involved in discussions where my opponent is supporting something which any reasonable person would see is wrong. For example, I have pointed out that some people argue based on an urban myth which has been revealed to be untrue, or a scientific study which has been discredited, or an alternative therapy which has been shown not to work. But they often say "well even if it isn't true it's still interesting or meaningful or has a deeper truth". Yeah, right.
Another thing I hear is that they demand the right to be wrong and resent people like me pointing the problems with their beliefs. Or sometimes they say that their truth is a different type of truth than mine. Yeah, it's the sort of truth which isn't actually true, apparently!
So these people are wrong and some of them are idiots but it's a free world (well, maybe) so don't they have the right to be wrong? Before I answer let's look at example...
There is a case in New Zealand at the moment where a father is refusing to treat his son for HIV because he doesn't believe the diagnosis, doesn't believe that HIV causes AIDS, and thinks it the treatment which makes people sick rather than the disease itself. His basis for these beliefs is material he read on the internet which he prefers to believe in preference to the health professionals working on the case.
The District Health Board involved has taken legal action to gain the ability to treat the boy directly instead of relying on the father who has either not given him the medication at all or who has given it intermittently (which is even worse).
So it seems that on the balance of evidence this person is wrong because he's going against the advice of experts and seems to have sourced information from a crazy AIDS-denial web site. Does he have the right to be wrong?
No. No one has the right to believe and act on something that they should know is wrong. Deliberately ignoring experts and the vast weight of credible opinion and believing a nonsensical fringe group for some obscure reason is not a right anyone should have. And when that irrational belief harms and potentially causes the death of another person then it is even less a right.
And yes, the same applies to irrational religious and political beliefs. No one has the right to believe the world is 6000 years old. No one has the right to believe climate change is a left-wing conspiracy. No one has those rights because no one has the right to act like a moron when they (in most cases) aren't actually that stupid.
I welcome new ideas and different perspectives and everyone does have the right to present new thoughts for our consideration. But there does come a point where continuing to support an idea which is obviously wrong is no longer a good thing. That's when people should exercise their right to change their mind or their even more valuable right to shut the hell up!
Good topic. Serious issue. Only a few small comments.
1 - While I can appreciate the 'move', inserting the 'I am a little more flexible and rational about it' comment in there, I would point out, that whatever your philosophical beliefs about an external source, there is nothing 'irrational' about how some people make the link between rights and objective morality. Your description of rights, (as granted by society), is entirely understandable, being the only one you can offer with your particular view, but there is no 'loss of rationality' required to accept that such rights are whatever that society decides today is 'reasonable'. History shows clearly that this is often very different to what it thinks is reasonable tomorrow, therefore it is rational to propose that 'rights' have (at least) far less real 'meaning' under your view.
In addition, every single right you can possibly think of is only meaningful when you understand that it demands an 'obligation' on some other 'conscious entity' as you put it. Most 'reasonable people' would consider adequate food and water a basic human right (and of course I agree), but that puts obligations on 'someone' (us as individuals, and/or governments) to ensure that right is met by those who appear not to be getting it. That principle applies in ALL cases. Every right brings an obligation with it.
However, what if the other entities choose not to be subject to that obligation, then the right is equally meaningless (at least in practical terms). It may be shocking for some to consider, but without any external authority that we 'might' be subject to (if it existed) it is entirely rational to ask why exactly should anyone feel any obligation at all to ensure someone else is able to live a full and productive life?
2 - You may not 'like' what some others believe, (as we all don't) but I am not sure how exactly anyone is able to DENY someone the right to believe whatever they want. Belief is an internal mind state, which is simply impossible to control by someone else - at least not without denying them the very basic human 'rights' to live a full and productive life! Unless that is what you are really suggesting?
This is where we need to make the distinction between BELIEF, and ACTIONS - or physical consequences of that belief. It is illogical to suppose we can even in principle deny that father the right to 'believe' what he does about HIV etc. It is more rational however, to come to a conclusion that the medical community has enough evidence to justify a decision that overalls that fathers ACTIONS wrt to his son and proper treatment.
You acknowledged this when you said, 'no one has the right to ACT like a moron'. Believing some stupid however (in itself) has no actual consequence until some action results, and the 'right' to that act is all that can ever be legislated (or agreed by society) etc. Cheers.
Comment 2 by richard on 2015-02-11 at 17:54:34:
Sorry for the darn typos - 1: "it puts obligations on us to ensure the right is met FOR those who appear not to be getting it". and 2: 'justify a decision that OVERRULES that fathers actions...' - not sure what 'overalls' have to do with this topic! lol
Comment 3 by OJB on 2015-02-12 at 10:48:18:
1. Inventing an entity where there is zero evidence, following a worldview which is contradictory to modern science and a lot of modern philosophy, and using circular logic by begging the question (there must be a god because there is objective morality from a higher source) are all irrational.
I don't think rights under my view have less meaning at all, in fact maybe the opposite is true. But we have been here before with our discussion of Plato's objection to god being the source of morality and I can't see much changing on that topic.
Yes, I guess all rights potentially cause a disadvantage to others so I would probably agree on the idea that rights imply obligations. Yes, some people might choose to ignore those obligations but most of them would not be part of the "reasonable" group I keep mentioning.
I think the thing that needs to be remembered here is that nothing is absolute or perfect. All rights are somewhat arbitrary, changeable, and subjective. There are no objective rights because there are no objective morals because there is no possible way such morals could exist.
2. I think there are inevitable practical consequences to all beliefs. If people have irrational beliefs they can't help but have those beliefs affect their actions which in turn can disadvantage society.
I should say though that I'm not particularly committed to the idea that people don't have the right to be irrational or ignorant or wrong. Clearly there would be advantages if everyone was rational but there would be disadvantages too, including the fact that the world would be a less interesting and diverse place.
Comment 4 by Richard on 2015-02-14 at 00:03:23:
I am not 100% certain I am committed to the idea that people should have the right to be wrong either... but I could be wrong about that. hehe
I would like to make a distinction though too between being wrong and being rational. Just because being wrong is often due to irrationality does not mean it always is the case. Beliefs about many things can even be wrong but still be perfectly rational. The world is full of very complex probability calculations and every poker player knows the most rational decision can sometimes be the wrong one.
I am not trying to be argumentative at all here Owen, but I am just struggling to know how you reconcile "I don't think rights under my view have any less meaning, in fact maybe the opposite is true." with "...nothing is absolute...all rights are somewhat arbitrary, changeable, and subjective.". Can you clarify?
Comment 5 by OJB on 2015-02-14 at 12:29:25:
It's best not to be too certain of your views on topics which have a significant element of subjective opinion involved. In fact, it's best not to be too certain of anything. If I was going to be really accurate (but also really tedious) I might attach a certainty value to all my comments!
I agree with your thoughts on correctness and rationality. It is possible to reach a correct conclusion using an irrational process (luck might be involved) and the opposite is also possible.
I think most religious views are the result of lack of rationality, usually because the person has the religious belief for emotional, cultural, etc (irrational) reasons and then attempts to confirm it using what they think is a rational process but really isn't.
Yes, I can clarify and I'm glad you asked! My thought is this: according to our best knowledge of the world and according to the application of the best rational thought processes there can be no higher source of morality and rights. Therefore a worldview which recognises this and treats rights accordingly is a better one than starts with the false view that there is some special, supernatural backing for them.
So recognising that there really is no greater meaning is more meaningful than assigning a false meaning. Do you see what I mean?
Comment 6 by richard on 2015-02-15 at 05:46:13:
Thanks for the clarification, but of course I still don't see what you mean. What I was asking for was not simply another hugely presumptive and subjective assertion about the comparison between theistic and atheistic belief. Your personal faith (on that topic) needs no clarification whatsoever. I was asking for a clarification specifically internal to only your view. Namely, how you can justify reconciling the two claims you offered - at least with any rationality? How do you claim that rights have 'more meaning' if they are arbitrary, subjective and changeable?
Put another way, I am asking why (once we have already accepted your 'most rational' view of the world), is it not equally more rational, to accept that rights actually have less (if any) true meaning, if they can simply disappear on the majority whim at any time?
Comment 7 by OJB on 2015-02-15 at 14:48:58:
I think the greatest meaning (value, relevance, etc) comes from what is true. I fully accept that we can never be 100% sure about what is true and not true in the real world but we can be fairly certain about many things.
If we need a supernatural source for values then that source had better be real or we are just fooling ourselves. A set of values which are thought to have absolute meaning but are based on an entity for which there is no evidence are worse (except in the incredibly unlikely event that the entity actually does exist despite the lack of evidence) than a set which are not absolute but at least we are realistic about.
Either way the values just come from someone's opinion. In my worldview we are realistic and accept that, but in yours you pretend that what really came form some primitive desert nomads actually came from a god. Which would you say has more meaning?
And one other thing, even if the entity does exist I don't accept that we have to automatically accept that he is allowed to establish rights. As I said before, it gets back to something similar to Plato's argument regarding morals.
Comment 8 by richard on 2015-02-15 at 16:49:20:
Sorry, you just aren't getting the point. At very most all you can claim is that IF your view is right, then both our views have the same level of meaning, (which is all illusory as it amounts to whatever 'attachment' to them is dreamed up by the prevailing society). However, even this is hard to justify, because even if my view is in fact false, when you remember the agreed link between rights and obligations, even the false belief in a moral law giver (for which ignoring the obligations results in negative consequences), produces a greater 'meaning' even if an illusion. Still not sure you have justified your position? Fun chat tho...
Comment 9 by OJB on 2015-02-15 at 19:49:41:
You seem to be rejecting the importance of truth and reality when assigning meaning to a belief. Remember that if you are prepared to accept silly myths as an acceptable basis for morality and rights then there are thousands of potential candidates (many of them contradictory). I would suggest that truth is a prerequisite for real meaning.
Comment 10 by richard on 2015-02-16 at 12:36:28:
Actually, no I am not doing that - as always its truth I am striving for in this discussion. I totally agree that truth is a pre-requisite for 'real' meaning. I am just not prepared to accept this particular 'silly myth' - claiming that rights somehow have more 'meaning' when they have no 'grounding' at all, as opposed to the alternative where they have 'some grounding' (even if it turned out to be a false one - in peoples minds).
Clearly wrt this specific 'silly myth' you offered, I have already mentioned that I am quite happily looking at it from YOUR position, and just asking how it does not come up wanting.
Quite frankly, even the whole notion of 'real meaning' you are talking about has little 'real meaning' under your view, where it too is merely a construct created by temporal beings who individually or even collectively will last an almost infinitely small fraction of the lifetime of the known universe.
Of course, it should go without saying that simply asserting (as you insist on doing in almost every sentence) that theism itself is a 'silly myth' does not make it so at all, but again, isn't it obvious that I am not even trying to defend that here - it needs no help from me.
Lets just stick to an honest analysis of the specific qn on the table. From an athiests pov, where no moral law giver (other than human) exists, and religion is also a human construct, then which system of morality is likely to produce a higher level of consideration for the kind of human rights (again as you defined them) that you seem to think still have some real meaning?
Comment 11 by OJB on 2015-02-16 at 22:02:34:
OK, there are two possibilities here...
First, there is no god and all the morality, rights, and rules are just something invented by bronze age desert nomads. Even if we accepted that was their origin they would have less meaning than more relevant standards invented by modern society. If we pretend they really come form a (non-existent) god then things are even worse because they are given a higher status than they deserve.
Second, a god does exist and has created these rules in some way. But if he has we get back to a whole pile of problems which I have discussed before: There's the problem Plato points out (which you have nor answered in any meaningful way). Also how do we know the god is good? And which god should we believe? And which interpretation of the god's alleged words?
Either way it seems a lot better to rely on rights which have been arrived at by a consensus of modern people in a society where those rights will apply. Not only is this a more honest approach but it is a more democratic one too.
Comment 12 by richard on 2015-02-20 at 10:44:27:
Actually you have included lots of possibilities in the above response. It is important that when making an argument, the premises used to form that argument are also true, and make sense.
Lets take the first 'option'. If there is no God, then I think you have no basis for claiming that 'all morality, rights, and rules are 'just something invented by bronze age desert nomads'. I agree with you that modern standards would have 'more relevance', but this only makes sense if you are claiming that those modern rights and rules are markedly different from the old ones. I don't think anyone believes this is the case. The majority will affirm that the same rules and rights are relevant as an invention by todays society. Which actually is more evidence for the objectivity of the morals in the first place.
Secondly no one 'pretends' rights really come from a non existent God in order to keep them more 'meaningful'. That is just silly. Of course the case being examined above was whether even a false belief in the existence of God, would produce more meaningful rights. They are still undeniably more meaningful to those that do belief in a higher authority - even if that belief turned out to be false. No pretending here.
Again, it possibly comes down to the definition of the phrase 'more meaning'. Meaning IS a subjective quantity only, in that it is a value of relevance and importance in peoples minds only. Again - I am not intending to downplay the importance of truth, i.e. how those peoples beliefs match reality, but simply pointing out that whether we like it or not, people WILL apply more meaning to things they believe in, whether objectively true or not. I know we are both agreed that we'd prefer everyones beliefs matched reality. But unfortunately, this doesn't change the fact that rights, and their resulting obligations, have undeniably more 'meaning', in peoples minds, when there is a perceived appropriate authority behind them. It's really quite simple.
Comment 13 by OJB on 2015-02-20 at 21:49:28:
Yeah, I didn't make that very clear. What I meant is that if there is no god the moral rules which are alleged to have originated with him really came from bronze age desert nomads. That is the true origin of most religious morality of course, which is why it is so dangerous to accept it as having meaning conferred by a god.
I think many people think modern morality is hugely different from that of thousands (or even hundreds) of years ago. Here are a few examples of where standards have changed or where they might not have even existed in the past: environmentalism, women's rights, animal rights, slavery, potentially dangerous technologies, human influence on the world as a whole, etc. There is either little of relevance or standards contrary to modern ideas regarding these topics in religion.
So these so-called objective moral standards have more subjective (only) meaning to those who believe in a fantasy. Sort of destroys any true objectivity they might have, don't you think?
I agree that people assign more subjective meaning to rights when they think they come from a supernatural source. That is exactly the problem I have been trying to point out. The meaning isn't really there and pretending it is leads to big problems.
For example, there are plenty of examples of conservative Christians accepting silly ideas they see in the Bible instead of actually thinking about reality, and that leads to belief in factually meaningless but religiously significant moral standards being followed. Could I offer Westboro Baptist as an example?
Comment 14 by richard on 2015-03-09 at 14:59:49:
First paragraph is totally circular of course, so cannot disagree - if there is no god, then suggesting morality IS from God - is simply wrong. As for being - 'so dangerous' - that of course would depend entirely on what morals were being suggested. Can you outline which of say (just for sake of discussion) the 10 commandments - are 'so dangerous' such that if no God actually exists we would do better by ignoring them? Obviously the first four are meaningless under your scenario so can be excluded. That leaves:
Honour your father and mother
Don't murder
Don't commit adultery
Don't steal
Don't lie
Don't covet someone elses stuff
The obvious point is that holding to such morals is not 'dangerous' at all, whatever their source.
In addition I think you will struggle to find any (serious) cultures at any time in history that have moral systems in consistent opposition to the above 'guidelines for successful living in societies'. There are obviously objective principles embodied in the above (even if not specifically mentioned, that are all that's needed to cover any of the new ideas of more modern societies. What do you mean by 'dangerous technologies' for example - if not something that will cause harm to other people.
In the discussion about whether morality is objective or not, the existence of lots of fringe subjective morals, doesn't change the fact that the basics as described above are objective features of reality. To deny that is only possible if you are prepared to accept that ALL morals are subjective, including all those listed.
The last paragraph again - makes no sense. If God doesn't exist then our morality is whatever society decide it is, so what's the basis of your complaint against Westboro Baptist again? (You know btw I completely agree with you that they are sadly mistaken in their particular application of their beliefs). But the real point is - how is their view of morality any less 'meaningful' than anyone elses view without an external standard? Is this because they are a minority view? What if they were to become the majority? Would their morality then be endorsed by you - as it should be?
If it's about 'factually meaningless' moral standards - what does that mean - who says facts need to be the deciding factor is that a moral law you have decided in advance?
Comment 15 by OJB on 2015-03-10 at 09:53:04:
So you agree that until it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that there is a god, and which god it is, then we should not use any rules which are claimed to have been derived from that god's thoughts. That is the dangerous thing: accepting rules without any real thinking.
Most of those rules make sense in most circumstances (but not all). But those aren't the only rules espoused by religions, are they? In fact those are the rules (or guidelines) which any reasonable person would accept. It is the ideas derived form religion which lead to suicide bombing, murdering abortion doctors, hateful acts against people with alternative lifestyles, etc which are more of a problem.
How would you apply those rules to the problems of modern society, such as is genetic engineering OK, how much of the environment should we sacrifice for economic growth, should we build hyper-intelligent machines, etc?
I would not support any moral rule which I disagree with even if it was supported by the majority. There are no absolute morals, just broadly agreed standards. The general trend is towards better standards though: more equality, longer life, less violence, etc, so in general it works.
Facts should always be the basis of morality. If we create rules based on a myth (like the other commandments you conveniently left out or the other bizarre rules scattered throughout the Bible) then we get both silly and dangerous outcomes.
Comment 16 by richard on 2015-03-11 at 12:21:59:
Huh? Are you saying we should not use the rule 'Do not murder' simply because at one point it is claimed to have come from a God, that you deny exists? So murder is OK then? Of course not.
Again I have to reject these same tired old claims you make - How do you reconcile a biblical rule like Do not Murder' with your claim that Christianity encourages murdering abortion doctors? Some pretty radical logic there.
Same way you apply whatever rules you have come up with to the problems of modern society?
Similarly the claim that there are no absolute morals and then claiming you would not support any moral rule you disagree with even if it was supported by the majority - is inconsistent. Exactly what is the basis for your perceived 'right' to disagree with the majority? This is precisely the problem with non-grounded morality. You want to have your subjective cake and eat absolute morality only when it suits you.
Your language constantly 'steals' from an absolute morality world view, when you say things like 'the general trend is towards better standards'. Better standards? What do you mean by better? - better being defined by what standard? Unless you are agreeing with me that more equality, longer life, less violence are indeed absolute moral views (i.e. independant of what the majority might think), then claiming these are 'better' is meaningless. Of course I too claim they ARE better, but at least I have a rational reason for doing so.
Same goes with 'Facts should always be the basis of morality'. Of course I agree with you that this is also an example of an absolute rule - as you yourself implied using the word 'always'. But under your view, one should ask 'Says who exactly?' - Do YOU think this an absolute rule after all, or is this too just another subjective current trend? If so, then you MUST be happy to accept a state when the trend (majority) decides that the opposite is true. I seriously do not believe that you (or anyone) really holds that view.
Eh? I didn't 'conveniently leave out' the other commandments? I indicated clearly in that post the reason they didn't apply to the previous topic - when considering the scenario you believe in - that God doesn't exist. Such word games are a little beneath you to be honest.
Comment 17 by OJB on 2015-03-11 at 22:12:53:
Whether a rule is claimed to have come from a god or not is irrelevant to me. I accept rules (or more accurately guidelines because I don't believe in absolute rules) based on whether I find them morally valid and relevant. If they also happen to be part of a religious doctrine then that is fine, I'm not going to reject them just because of that.
The Bible is contradictory and confusing. At one point it condemns murder (it's not even clear whether it is murder or killing in general) and in another glorifies it. You can get what you want from it because it has no real meaning. That's why so many people use religious texts to justify atrocities.
I can't see how it is contradictory to claim that there are no absolute morals and therefore I can refuse to accept something that another person or society in general claims is one. Quite the opposite, really.
I don't use any language from absolute morality at all. When I claim something is better it is simply better in my opinion. In many cases that opinion agrees with the majority of sane, reasonable people, but I make no claim of absolutes here.
The same applies to any statement like saying moral rules should be based on reality. That is just my opinion, but one which makes a lot of sense. However I could make a case for having rules based on fantasy too, but I wouldn't really believe it.
We were discussing the dangers of following moral rules based on religious teaching. You pointed out that some of the rules make sense. I agree, but I did want to point out that many of the others make no sense at all.
Comment 18 by richard on 2015-03-12 at 12:43:56:
Thanks for the clarifications. Wrt to the question of the 'dangers of religious texts'. I'll finish with this thought: If such texts (as simply the current targets for mis-use) were not present/available (as you may like), then there MUST be some alternative writing/media/record that is said to be 'authoritative', (though we clearly both agree we can't see how they can be, all being just personal opinion), in order to define whatever moral guidelines would actually be in place. I suspect people will be just as happy to mis-use those texts to justify atrocities. An atrocity being simply defined as breaking those guidelines, whatever they happened to be.
Of course - I agree entirely moral rules should be based on reality - that DOES makes sense. But you still equivocate in two ways. Firstly, even the phrase 'makes sense', attaches an absolute quality to the claim - you even distinguished it FROM merely your opinion, saying 'that's my opinion BUT one which makes alot of sense'. Secondly, IF you really could make a case for moral rules being based on fantasy, then the opposite (basing them on facts) would NOT 'make sense'. It's the logical law of excluded middle - they can't BOTH make sense. This is of course exactly WHY you agreed you 'wouldn't really believe it'. Sorry, but you just can't escape absolute principles- since they DO turn out to be a part of reality.
Comment 19 by OJB on 2015-03-13 at 09:22:02:
You say the texts are misused but what justification do you have for that? They can be interpreted in different ways, some of which seem good and others bad. But how do we know which is which? Apparently from some source of morality independent of the religion, that is the current opinion of the majority. At one point slavery was OK so the parts of the Bible supporting it were accepted as they were, now it is no longer acceptable so those Bible passages require some "creative reinterpretation".
I didn't mean to say that anything making sense is a universal phenomenon (except for formal logical rules). What makes sense to one person might not to another. For example, slavery may make perfect sense in some situations to some people. Also, it depends on your underlying philosophy. I guess mine is fundamentally utilitarianism so I try to gain the maximum good for the greatest number, but even that is a simplification.
Sorry but I really couldn't follow your point in the second part of the second paragraph so I can't comment.
Comment 20 by richard on 2015-03-13 at 18:13:05:
I wasn't meaning to concentrate on the question of whether biblical texts were 'mis-used'. I was rather referring more generally to the idea that IF there was no 'religious' texts providing moral guidelines, then because it is reasonable to assume we'd still have morality (or all be dead?) that some other form of moral guidelines would exist, in written (or some other easily communicated form). In order to justify to oneself or others the breaking of those moral guidelines we must (as you phrased it) 'creatively re-interpret' the texts. My point is that religious texts are no more or less vulnerable to that that any other historical writings intended to convey moral guidelines.
Wrt Biblical texts being mis-used, yes it's true that this can indeed occur, when individual passages or sections are taken without giving appropriate consideration to the rest of the document, just as it can in any large complex document. wrt Slavery, (and other similar topics), a fair and thorough analysis of both the texts and the times, reveals that slavery of the most immoral kind - that we associate with the word today, (with images of African / American slavery, or biblical Egyptian slavery) was always condemned. It is not at all the same as the 'slavery' that was acknowledged and practiced in biblical Israel. No, the word may be the same, but the 'slavery' in that context was more like 'employees paid via food and board'. Any mis-treatment of such 'employees' was condemned, and the concept of being 'released from service' after a period was an integral part of the culture. Context and an understanding of the history is vital to a correct understanding of the texts on 'slavery'.
American Slavery was finally overturned by William Wilberforce and others precisely because they made clear the moral understanding wrt slavery that was always present in the texts. No 're-interpretation' was needed - just a full and complete interpretation.
Comment 21 by OJB on 2015-03-14 at 00:04:55:
The Bible was used to both support and oppose slavery in America. Neither of those interpretations was "right" or "wrong" and both sides thought they had the correct interpretation. This "full and complete interpretation" is not that at all, it is simply one possible interpretation which happens to match what the person doing the interpretation wanted to believe, and is not necessarily any more or less accurate than any other.
So yet again the morality of various interpretations of Bible texts are compared against another standard - that being the currently preferred values of the society at that time and place. There are no absolutes because any religious work which claimed that would need to be tested before it could be accepted as absolute and because it was tested it is no longer absolute. This is related to Plato's point, of course.
Comment 22 by OJB on 2015-03-14 at 13:47:26:
A question for you. How would you interpret this...
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. (Exodus 21:20-21)
Comment 23 by OJB on 2015-03-14 at 14:24:15:
Also, I didn't really address you main point which seems to be that any source (not just a religious text) of moral guidance can be mis-interpreted to suit the individual. You will be surprised to hear that I don't really agree with you! :)
For a start, an absolute source of revealed wisdom (allegedly) from a divine source can more easily be mis-used than a source which has a clearly human origin. I don't see many people using the teaching of a philosopher like John Stuart Mill (a significant contributor to Utilitarianism) to justify murder, war, or other atrocities. But I do see religious texts being used this way all the time.
Also, because religious texts are supposedly the ultimate wisdom of a god followers are not encouraged to question the ideas presented. In philosophy and science debate and skepticism are integral parts of the system.
And religious texts come from a variety of authors, not of whom are gods, so the various parts of the texts are contradictory and confusing.
Finally, generally I don't see people who follow a moral system such as Utilitarianism doing that because a particular book says so. In my case for example I find it to be a useful philosophy but not one I am wholly committed to.
In general the problem is this: when you are religious you generally stop being skeptical of what you are told because if you did question it you would quickly arrive at the point of leaving the religion (because they are all so blatantly false). The rest of us don't hold any idea as being above criticism because we have a intellectual rather than an emotional attachment.
Comment 24 by 9942507 on 2015-03-15 at 10:07:05:
The important point is not whether both sides thought they had the right interpretation, it is whether there can be a right interpretation at all.Your opinion is that "neither of those interpretations was right or wrong". Yes - a precise description of subjective morality, which means you are OK with Slavery, should the decision have gone the other way. Got it. Thanks. But we already knew that.
Regarding John Stewart Mill, and other texts: You are confusing what does happen under our 'reality' with what would happen under the alternate reality we were imagining where no 'religious texts' exist. You really think that individuals won't then use whatever source of moral law documentation exists to justify whatever they want to do if it happens to be against that view? There is no sound reason to think that (imo). Simple as that.
Hmm - you don't follow it because a book says so? The delivery media of the moral system isn't really the significant point is it.
The final bit is a little insulting, and you have made this claim before, that I have some form of 'emotional' attachment to my world view. We have discussed this before. I am open to skepticism about all world views, and have arrived pretty emotionless at the one which best fits reality - whether I 'like it' or not. There are things I do NOT like about my world view - but this is the problem with discussions like this which tend to focus on the things we don't happen to like about various world views. Whether we 'like' them has nothing to do with changing whether they are a true match of reality or not. You are indeed correct that this goes in both directions - unfortunately some do choose a world view because they like it - a bad reason to do so. But also some to choose to reject a world view because they do not like it - also equally bad.
BTW - I will answer the Exodus question for you - will take a bit longer to give a complete response, which I can't do off the top of my head, since it won't be just cherry picking a single verse, which I agree by itself does cause confusion. Cheers.
Comment 25 by OJB on 2015-03-15 at 14:45:34:
There can be right or wrong interpretations of any text if the origin of that text is taken into consideration. If we consider a particular part of the Bible as being the opinion of a particular anonymous writer with no greater credibility than any other and with no consistency with the rest of the text then we can say, yes that is a correct explanation of what he was trying to say. If we try to give it a deeper meaning (as if it really did come from a god) then we will fail.
I don't believe that any philosopher's work would be taken as literally and uncritically as something that allegedly came from a god. Why would it? Sure, there may be a few people who take the opinions of humans far too seriously but it is unlikely to happen to the same extent as something which is supposedly of divine origin.
Yes, I know it sounds insulting and condescending but it is what I genuinely believe. I cannot see how an intelligent person like you can believe something so obviously absurd unless the idea has an emotional rather than intellectual origin. The fact that even really smart people sound ridiculous when they start talking about their religion supports this view.
Re the verses form Exodus: you have said in the past that the Bible is easy to interpret and clear so I am a bit surprised you need time to prepare a defence of that particular material!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE