God in Ethics

T

Tyler

Registered Senior Member
God gave us life, but apparently he has no place in sciforums' Ethics forum!

Recently we have seen a number of threads change room due to the religious content. Namely, on the topic of homosexuality we have had some moves from Ethics to Religion. One example is this thread by Lady about possible hypocricy in the laws of the Western World: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11336&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

Now, god only knows why Anthony asked this thread to be moved, but he did. Not only that, but he seemed to have asked for it to be deleted ("if you dont want this thread delete it because i certanly dont"). Why? Is it just me, or is it in exactly the right place? For the rest of my thread, I'd like to simply clear up two views of mine:

Religion Forum - The purpose of this forum is to discuss religion, to debate on the interpitation of verse, the nature of religion and the debates which go along with it.

Ethics Forum - The purpose of this forum is to debate the laws of the lands, the morals and ethics of society, their nature and the justice involved in both ethics and laws.

Now, the aforementioned thread as well as one other that comes to mind (which was temporarily closed and then re-opened) Anthony (our current Mod in Ethics for the past while) wanted sent to religion because one side of the debate was using their Christian (or otherwise) background in a discussion about ethics. Well, for starters, what's wrong with this? I'd venture a guess that damn near every single human being on earth has their ethics largely influenced by past religions.

Secondly, the two threads were not religious debate. Now I recognize that Anthony is openly bisexual, and so he is bound to have at least some bias in moderating the debate around homosexuality. However, I fail to see what good it does to move a thread which is about the law and the ethics surrounding it (such as; why is homosexuality legal and not incest or such?) to religion simply because someone is arguing from a religious basis. Fuck, to be honest all of us are arguing with religious basis, right? I mean I openly claim not to have any religion in me, but I grew in North America so it's not exactly like my natural ethics aren't influenced by past religion. All of us are. It's just that some members are more up-front and believe more firmly in the religious basis of their ethics.

So I must question, why no God in Ethics? I've always said that regardless of ethics or "rights", the rules should be made based on the best interest of all. And everything I've said so far seems to be more an ethical discussion than anything. So now I ask, what good do we accomplish by banning God from Ethics? He obviously has a huge influence in a large amount of people's ethical structure. Are we to tell these people that they either need to loose the big man or get out of discussing the law? While I realize it's not common for religious folk (or any of us, for that matter) to see the possible errors of their way in terms of ethics and law, are we not stopping any possibility? In attempting to perhaps spread the good-word of God-less ethics and law are we really just encouraging it's life by banning it from our forums?

Just something that's irked me for a while.
 
Im sorry, but I agree with Tyler. Why was that thread moved? What was the purpose behind that? It contains some religion aspects, so? That doesn't mean that it belongs in the religion forum, or deleted for that matter.

I understand that the topic is unsettling for some, but it should have stayed here. Along with any other threads that partly deal with religious ethics and morals.
 
I have to agree. Many, if not most, ethical systems are based on religion. Obviously, God has a place in ethical debate.

While Lady posts mere flamebait, flamebait should be closed as flamebait or left open. Not moved to an inappropriate forum.
 
tyler strange that i have the surport of the 2 religiouse mods

saying "blame satan not god" doesnt make it ethics
 
"tyler strange that i have the surport of the 2 religiouse mods"

Fine, if that is true consider my beef holds up with them as well. I'll ask Cris and James.


"saying "blame satan not god" doesnt make it ethics"

If you read through the link I posted, the general conversation was not; "Blame satan".
 
"A number of people including myself have said something similar here, Tyler. What happens remains to be seen."

I've voiced my support on the topic, and my opinion is well known to the other mods of sciforums. I've always had total faith in Cris, James, Goofy, Wet1, Xev and, of course, Dave. So far, I've yet to see any of these folk do something I consider detrimental to sciforums. Believe me, if there's a real problem here, it will be dealt with. While I believed Green_World and NotPresident... should have been ousted well before they were, the mods got the job done and the forums cleaned up in excellent time. If there is a real problem with Anthony being a moderator, the boys upstairs will take care of it. Until then I urge you to not worry about the Ethics forum. This is not an anti-Anthony thread, this is to deal with one aspect of the moving of threads in Sciforums.
 
An active excerise in ethics

One of the hard things is figuring what to do with some of the threads. A lot of them are cross overs between fora. Some mix science with religion, some politics with biology. No matter which way you go it doesn't quite fit. You make your guess to your best judgement and try to work with the other mods to get it right.

In Lady's case, I think we all know that she is strongly religious. Most of her posts will cross over at some point. It is the way she sees the world. For her that is right. That does not make it easier to do.

For those that question the move, why? Put yourself in the mod position, think about where the thread is going to go as it develops, and back your decision with logical reasons. I would be interested in seeing these posts.

Xev has done that in hers. She makes the arguement that religion and ethics go hand in hand. So that one is used. Who is next and what would your support be for leaving the thread here as oppossed to where it is at. Remember when it is done that you must also communicate with the other mods of that forum as to why it will remain or why it should be accepted by them. So the reason should also cover that aspect.
 
"For those that question the move, why?"

The thread I linked to seemed to be going quite nicely, without much of "God says so" going on, actually.


Oh, wait, I must rephrase that. It was going nicely four months ago, when it was active, and could be seen by the members. Anthony seems to have brought it back up to everyone's attention for no reason. The thread was dead.
 
If the best reason you can give for an act being immoral is that your favorite religious book says so, you're not really having a philosophical ethical debate, in my opinion. You're merely expressing a religious belief.

It's a fine line, but in this instance I think the more appropriate place for the thread is the religion forum.
 
After reading wet1's, and JR's comments on the matter. I will have to take Asguards side on this.

That's right, I retract my previous statement.
 
But James the point is that the thread I put a link to was not a "God said so" thread. In fact, I thought it quite well represented the general consensus of many people in NA. Frankly, there was no reason to move it.

And even less reason considering it was dead and long-forgotten.
 
Ok Tyler. It wasn't my decision. I admit I only read the newer posts, which were definitely religious.
 
I agree that having somone like Lady merely say "because god says so" is annoying. However, I don't agree that you can remove a thread or all religious posts on that basis. The first such post by any particular poster should be allowed... it is an opinion. If that poster then continues ranting, simply delete those posts and leave the thread intact where it is. Perhaps send them a PM about why you've done it. Half the time a religiously-based post ends up taking over a thread because people cannot help responding to it, and then the more evangelistic of our religious types feel the need to restate their thought... again, and again.....
In my opinion half the problem is those responding to crap, not the crap being posted in the first place.

I just don't see why a religious poster who uses logical arguments to back up a religious statement should be forced to use the religion forum.
 
Religion, Society, Morals, and Justice

A big reason religious people are greatly disliked by those who aren't religious is because religion puts down rules for standards of behavior which are NOT based on one's own personal opinions. For the sake of the Atheists and Seccularists here, I am going to try to put my ideas and thoughts in as Darwinian a context I can.

Morals are at it's very definition a removal of some freedoms. I for the record, define freedom as not being held accountable for a given action. For example, you can walk to a convenience store and buy a soda, and you won't be punished for doing it. There are no enforced consequences for your actions in that instance. One of the biggest cournerstones of religion is a standardized moral system. Far beyond simply the theology of God, is the idea of standards of behavior set down for a society. It is truly from religion from which the concepts of justice, fairness, and equality sprung, and the existance of civalization is in itself the ultimate proof that these concepts are all too real. Science can perhaps too, be counted as the ultimate suscess of religion. In order for science, and the intelligent dischord and free exchange of ideas to take root in society, human beings first had to have the capability to work coopertively - a very CENTRAL tennet of all religions. In order to work coopertively, humans must be able to understand the motives, and reasons of other humans and be capable of setting aside the instincutal programming of nature... which is something like: SLEEP, ESCAPE, FIGHT, FEED, ADAPT, MATE.

In nature there is no morality, only the survival of the most fit. A single individual must do 100% of all the labors required to sustain himself and possibly his mate and offspring. Only those which are the most intent upon survival will thrive. In civilization by contrast, a number of humans come togeather to augement each others survival by dividing the labor according to which people each have the best skills at a given task. Naturally, in order for such cooperation to take hold, standards of behavior must be adopted by all those who are involved in the civilization, and in turn, those standards of behavior must be enforced. Stealing is an almost universal moral, and thus can be used as a good example.

A farmer sews his crops for the Winter, and places his crop in his barn. During the night, a neighbor steals a portion of his crop. The survival of that farmer and his family in winter of course depends on his food supply, and since his food supply has been compromised, his chances of survival have been decreased. The said farmer may choose to move to another community afterwards, and if he does so, the entire community has just lost a part of it's food supply and thus the overall survivability of the village has been impacted. Naturally, the farmer may be appeased if the missing crops are returned, and the person who stole them is punished. Punishment does serve two purposes. First, it reinforces the morals throughtout the community, and second it can help to ease the sense of betrayel and distrust the farmer has following the theft of the food. If the thief is publically denounced for what he has done, then the community as a whole will treat him negatively, decreasing his own chances of survival. If the thief refuses to conform to the societies morals, he can be expelled from the community indefinetly, cutting him off from the mutual support and augmented survivability which the community offers.

God believing religions are the only standardized, and stable moral systems available because with the way they are constructed and they were designed to be self-enforced by the community. While it is true that religions became very diverse and very differnt from one another, the mechanism for this change was not entirely a change within the morals themselves, as much as it was theological change. For example, the Lutheran church separated from Catholicism upon the protests of Martin Luther for theological disagreements. Similarly, Yeshua (Jesus) was crucified not entirely because he rebelled against the moral system of the Jews, but because he was a challenge to the authority of the Rabbitical priesthood. It is true Yeshua saved a prostitue from being stoned, but he did not say that it was okay for her to be a prostitute - indeed, he told her after he saved her from the priests NOT to sin anymore. Similarly, the crime of Murder is almost a univeraslly unchanged moral. The Celts, the Jews, the Christians, Hindus, Muslems, Shentoists, Aboriginals, Native Americans, ect. ect. ect. all have laws against killing members of one's own community. This does not mean that moral change is not a reason that differnt religions exists... indeed, the ancient Greeks and the Jewish moral systms are VERY differnt but hopefully I have demonstrated that morally, human beings are rather conservative historically.

But anyhow, if one will look historically, one will note that Seccularism and Atheism did not truly take a more significant following until the last few hundred years. This is because I think, the way that morals and religion are enforced within society have changed. Today, the punishments are differnt from those in more ancient times. A guilty man nowadays would pay some kind of monetary fine, go to jail, and or pay repetitions to his victem or their families for how he affected their lives. While Jail is considered by many to be removal from society, the criminal isn't really. He is still provided for by the society - he recieves food, clothing, shelter, and very basic medical care at the expense of the community. In ancient times, to be removed from society meant exile - to be cast out. You recieved no assistance in your survival from the community, and your own chances of living wern't all that great.

Seccularism is based on the philosophy that human beings can each weigh for themselves what is right and wrong, just and unjust. There is no God, and thus no higher authority to decide what is good and evil. Human beings decide what is right and wrong, and no human being is no more qualified than any other to decide what is right and wrong. They key weakness of this philosophy is that for a religious community working togeather for mutual survival, the seccularist is untrustable. The seccularist believes that his own opinions on what is right and wrong are just as valaid as anyone elses opinion. Naturally, the seccularist will resist the reinforcement of the morals of the community if he feels they are wrong and may seek to have laws changed, or seek to prove that the laws of the given community does not apply to him. Pro-Choice activists sum it up. "Suppose I don't like your morals?" "Who are you to decide?" "I don't believe in your God."

Such moral rebellion can only come about if individuals are allowed to enjoy all the benefits of a mutual cooperation society, but are not required to conform to the morals of other members of the community. While many will embrace this greater personal freedom purely as progress, it also breeds mistrust, and thus inherrantly damages one of the major tennants of civalization: mutual cooperation. If one does not trust and like their neighbors, they will not want to assist them in their mutual survival. However with the way our modern societies access to resources and it's execution of justice, they have no choice but to help them. We redistribute the labor and resources of the community automatically via our tax system, without any recourse offered. This forced assistance in turn only breeds more resentments on the part of the religious man against the seccularist. Again, Abortion is a good example. While a Christian may be very pro-life, tax funded abortions are available, and thus he supports the activities of others he considers immoral against his conscent.

It all adds up. The only reason our system is holding itself togeather anymore is because we have as a society come into a system of not imposing moral standards, but at the same time we have supported each others mutual survival. In another point of view, we are being forced to support what we consider immoral acts by others, by our own moral standards. Such a system is not stable and depends totally upon Government law enforcement for it's own survival. Without the support of the community as a whole, it will all fall as it already has begun to. How often do you hear "The Government Sucks.", and you hear it from Conservatives, from Liberals, from Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians, from Christians and Muslems, from Atheists, and forigners.

...and it is proveable to be caused by a lack of community enforced morality.

Think about it.
 
Xev is right - morality and justice go hand in hand. My long essay length post is to support my very valaid opinion that religion and morals go hand-in hand. I don't think it is right to delete posts because of someone's opinion, or someone's religious beliefs.
 
take note that the majority of those wanting the inclusion of god are not religious fundies. i myself do not believe in god. but i believe in fairness and that is not what is happening. surely an experienced moderator can tell the difference b/w legitimate references to moral law as defined by god and (as xev said), 'flamebait". it is amazing to me that an issue such as this has to come up in sciforums. due to just one posters lack of judgement, the mods appear to have totally overeacted. pronouncements such as "no god in ethics (asguard)" is extremely shortsighted.

please do not delete this post. i am merely voicing my opinion
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top