God in Ethics
- Thread starter Tyler
- Start date
The issue you have is identifying when a discussion moves from an ethical/moral/justice debate that includes religious considerations, to proselytizing. For example a discussion that considers a religious stance on morality where morality must come from an absolute standard is quite different to where someone blatantly states "God said…." and where they know full well that other debaters do not accept the proposal that God exists. The debate then turns into a religious discussion.
However, once the not so subtle preaching is identified then experienced debaters can divert the discussion back to a more neutral mode. Or alternatively an experienced moderator could suggest a return to the topic line. Unfortunately while Asguard is very keen and enthusiastic, he has a debating style that is little different from anyone else, if we are to be honest here, and this is not a criticism of Asguard. So it is unfair to expect him to consistently identify problem posts and act quickly before the discussion changes direction. His very understandable method of control is to object if religious text is mentioned. But as we can see from this discussion, this is neither adequate nor reasonable, nor acceptable.
There is also the other consideration that the Religion forum is the most popular single topic on the site, and overwhelms most other forums. Free-thoughts doesn't really count since it covers a whole multitude of topics. But many people do not want to debate religious issues and do not want religion thrown in their face in every debate. And they want to debate every-day issues without the presence of religion. And I think they would quite rightly expect that those who want to raise religious issues should do so in the religion forum.
In the science forums when religion is mentioned posters are usually quickly rebuked and directed at the religion forum. In Ethics the issue of religion is a valid component but to be fair to others the debates should not dissolve into a purely religious discussion. When that does occur then a move of the thread to Religion seems reasonable. This seems to me a reasonable compromise in the absence of a very strong and ever-present moderator.
Now I admit the choice to move is highly subjective and the qualifications should be one of dominant religious content where it is clear that it is religion that is being discussed and the not the original ethical/moral/justice proposition. My approach would be "when in doubt leave it alone", especially if no one is complaining.
However, once the not so subtle preaching is identified then experienced debaters can divert the discussion back to a more neutral mode. Or alternatively an experienced moderator could suggest a return to the topic line. Unfortunately while Asguard is very keen and enthusiastic, he has a debating style that is little different from anyone else, if we are to be honest here, and this is not a criticism of Asguard. So it is unfair to expect him to consistently identify problem posts and act quickly before the discussion changes direction. His very understandable method of control is to object if religious text is mentioned. But as we can see from this discussion, this is neither adequate nor reasonable, nor acceptable.
There is also the other consideration that the Religion forum is the most popular single topic on the site, and overwhelms most other forums. Free-thoughts doesn't really count since it covers a whole multitude of topics. But many people do not want to debate religious issues and do not want religion thrown in their face in every debate. And they want to debate every-day issues without the presence of religion. And I think they would quite rightly expect that those who want to raise religious issues should do so in the religion forum.
In the science forums when religion is mentioned posters are usually quickly rebuked and directed at the religion forum. In Ethics the issue of religion is a valid component but to be fair to others the debates should not dissolve into a purely religious discussion. When that does occur then a move of the thread to Religion seems reasonable. This seems to me a reasonable compromise in the absence of a very strong and ever-present moderator.
Now I admit the choice to move is highly subjective and the qualifications should be one of dominant religious content where it is clear that it is religion that is being discussed and the not the original ethical/moral/justice proposition. My approach would be "when in doubt leave it alone", especially if no one is complaining.
chris
But many people do not want to debate religious issues and do not want religion thrown in their face in every debate.
i doubt if anyone wants anything thrown in their face.
And they want to debate every-day issues without the presence of religion. And I think they would quite rightly expect that those who want to raise religious issues should do so in the religion forum.
again ethics has many components, religion being one of them. anyone rightly expecting ethics to be devoid of religious issues simply because a whimsical fancy, ie "there is a religious forum, discuss it there" is simply being unreasonable and probably biased.
there are entire fields of study, journals ....dealing with religious ethics and for sciforums to draw these artificial lines of demarcation is doing the entire community a disservice
religious ethics
ps: thanks to wet. james and chris for addressing our concerns.
no doubt moderator asguard will do so as well. perhaps something more reasoned than "no god in ethics" will be forthcoming this time
i leave you with my new sig that i use for ethics posts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
please do not delete this post. i am merely voicing my opinion
But many people do not want to debate religious issues and do not want religion thrown in their face in every debate.
i doubt if anyone wants anything thrown in their face.
And they want to debate every-day issues without the presence of religion. And I think they would quite rightly expect that those who want to raise religious issues should do so in the religion forum.
again ethics has many components, religion being one of them. anyone rightly expecting ethics to be devoid of religious issues simply because a whimsical fancy, ie "there is a religious forum, discuss it there" is simply being unreasonable and probably biased.
there are entire fields of study, journals ....dealing with religious ethics and for sciforums to draw these artificial lines of demarcation is doing the entire community a disservice
religious ethics
ps: thanks to wet. james and chris for addressing our concerns.
no doubt moderator asguard will do so as well. perhaps something more reasoned than "no god in ethics" will be forthcoming this time
i leave you with my new sig that i use for ethics posts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
please do not delete this post. i am merely voicing my opinion
Last edited:
spookz,
If you have a topic that is concerned with religious ethics then where would you place it? Religion, right? Since the Religion forum includes anything related to religion and has no exclusions. And where those interested in religion will likely be interested. OTOH such a subject posted in ethics may well be ignored because of the religious content, and as such would have been poorly palced.
But we have two distinct forums where there is an opportunity to separate the dominant issues. One chooses the forum where the primary bias is one way or the other.
But I am sure you will admit that there are many issues in ethics that do not involve religion. This in itself justifies an ethics forum separate from religion.
If you have a topic that is concerned with religious ethics then where would you place it? Religion, right? Since the Religion forum includes anything related to religion and has no exclusions. And where those interested in religion will likely be interested. OTOH such a subject posted in ethics may well be ignored because of the religious content, and as such would have been poorly palced.
chris
But we have two distinct forums where there is an opportunity to separate the dominant issues. One chooses the forum where the primary bias is one way or the other."
i was under the impression that threads are dynamic things that can take a different direction at any time
If you have a topic that is concerned with religious ethics then where would you place it? Religion, right? Since the Religion forum includes anything related to religion and has no exclusions
assume i start a thread "Ethical Political Campaigning:negative advertising" by your reasoning i would have to place it in we&p?
again assume i start a thread "cloning: the ethical considerations", this would go into bio & gen? after all we&p has no exclusions. neither does bio&gen, just poor ole ethics forum!
infact ethics can be broken down into so many other subdisciplines that not a single post could be justified in that forum. you could probably find a home for it in a matching forum.
science and soc already has "scientific ethics" as an description
If you have a topic that is concerned with religious ethics then where would you place it? Religion, right?
you cannot expect me to answer in the affirmative. i am taking the stance of " post ethical arguments of any persuasion in the ethics forum." this does not mean i support fundie type posting!
But we have two distinct forums where there is an opportunity to separate the dominant issues. One chooses the forum where the primary bias is one way or the other."
i was under the impression that threads are dynamic things that can take a different direction at any time
If you have a topic that is concerned with religious ethics then where would you place it? Religion, right? Since the Religion forum includes anything related to religion and has no exclusions
assume i start a thread "Ethical Political Campaigning:negative advertising" by your reasoning i would have to place it in we&p?
again assume i start a thread "cloning: the ethical considerations", this would go into bio & gen? after all we&p has no exclusions. neither does bio&gen, just poor ole ethics forum!
infact ethics can be broken down into so many other subdisciplines that not a single post could be justified in that forum. you could probably find a home for it in a matching forum.
science and soc already has "scientific ethics" as an description
If you have a topic that is concerned with religious ethics then where would you place it? Religion, right?
you cannot expect me to answer in the affirmative. i am taking the stance of " post ethical arguments of any persuasion in the ethics forum." this does not mean i support fundie type posting!
Last edited:
So your point is what? That a thread should stay where it started even though the topic has moved onto something else where it would gain more attention in a different forum. Or that it should be moved? I could argue either way.
Doesn't it depend on your introduction and how you want the thread to develop? Would you be arguing in a political context or an ethical context. Forum placement seems key to how you want the debate to proceed.
Well, no since you would have overridden that assessment by having the subject stress the ethics of the issue and not the science.
Again, you have the subjective choice of where to place a topic depending on how you want to stress the direction of the discussion. It seems to me that sciforums gives you more choice than you know how to handle.
So a deeply scientific issue that had a minor ethical component would go in ethics right, where very few would understand the issue?
chris
So your point is what? That a thread should stay where it started even though the topic has moved onto something else where it would gain more attention in a different forum. Or that it should be moved? I could argue either way.
i was making an observation. if a moderator wants to shuffle a post back and forth b/w forums depending on its current tilt, that is not really not my concern.
Doesn't it depend on your introduction and how you want the thread to develop? Would you be arguing in a political context or an ethical context. Forum placement seems key to how you want the debate to proceed.
i would assume and demand that any post in ethics be primarily one where ethics is the main concern
Again, you have the subjective choice of where to place a topic depending on how you want to stress the direction of the discussion. It seems to me that sciforums gives you more choice than you know how to handle.
the point of this whole discussion is that we are not being give a choice. ie: introduce religion into an ethics discussion and the thread will be moved.
So a deeply scientific issue that had a minor ethical component would go in ethics right, where very few would understand the issue?
how did you come to that conclusion from my post? isnt it a given that the ethics forum deal with ethics primarily. it could be political ethics, bioethics, religious ethics.......... as long as the major focus is ethics, it should be in the ethics forum.
what is an example of a "deeply scientific issue that had a minor ethical component" ?
i am also confused now. are you of the "no god in ethics" persuasion?
all it took was one abusive poster (lady) to have god banned from
ethics. what of the other posters who can make religious references and not overwhelm the thread or deviate it from its original purpose?
So your point is what? That a thread should stay where it started even though the topic has moved onto something else where it would gain more attention in a different forum. Or that it should be moved? I could argue either way.
i was making an observation. if a moderator wants to shuffle a post back and forth b/w forums depending on its current tilt, that is not really not my concern.
Doesn't it depend on your introduction and how you want the thread to develop? Would you be arguing in a political context or an ethical context. Forum placement seems key to how you want the debate to proceed.
i would assume and demand that any post in ethics be primarily one where ethics is the main concern
Again, you have the subjective choice of where to place a topic depending on how you want to stress the direction of the discussion. It seems to me that sciforums gives you more choice than you know how to handle.
the point of this whole discussion is that we are not being give a choice. ie: introduce religion into an ethics discussion and the thread will be moved.
So a deeply scientific issue that had a minor ethical component would go in ethics right, where very few would understand the issue?
how did you come to that conclusion from my post? isnt it a given that the ethics forum deal with ethics primarily. it could be political ethics, bioethics, religious ethics.......... as long as the major focus is ethics, it should be in the ethics forum.
what is an example of a "deeply scientific issue that had a minor ethical component" ?
i am also confused now. are you of the "no god in ethics" persuasion?
all it took was one abusive poster (lady) to have god banned from
ethics. what of the other posters who can make religious references and not overwhelm the thread or deviate it from its original purpose?
Last edited:
sppokz,
I think we would prefer to take actions that are generally acceptable to everyone, so I think your comments are valuable.
Agreed, and that has been my argument on this.
I agree and I think this thread shows that that criteria must change.
I was agreeing with you.
I don't know; it was hypothetical. Create you own scenario.
No.
I agree.
chris
I think we would prefer to take actions that are generally acceptable to everyone, so I think your comments are valuable
sure sounds very nice and egalitarian but lets not assume that the posters here are that committed to have discussions with moderators on the future of a thread. i would think it is more likely the thread will be simply abandoned. it is also more than likely the said discussion will degenerate into a petty argument.
it is far better to have good judgement exercised by the moderator in the first place. i mean who wants to go thru these mini dramas anyway
this place is a quality forum that also happens to allow its members a fair amount of personal discretion and leeway. that seems unique and i like to see it kept that way
I think we would prefer to take actions that are generally acceptable to everyone, so I think your comments are valuable
sure sounds very nice and egalitarian but lets not assume that the posters here are that committed to have discussions with moderators on the future of a thread. i would think it is more likely the thread will be simply abandoned. it is also more than likely the said discussion will degenerate into a petty argument.
it is far better to have good judgement exercised by the moderator in the first place. i mean who wants to go thru these mini dramas anyway
this place is a quality forum that also happens to allow its members a fair amount of personal discretion and leeway. that seems unique and i like to see it kept that way
Re: Religion, Society, Morals, and Justice
Xevious:
Morals need not be based in religion. In fact, I would say that any moral system based <b>only</b> on some assumed higher authority is not ultimately defensible. To say "We shouldn't do X because God prohibits it" is not to advance any kind of moral argument against X. It is merely saying that if you do X, God (or somebody who believes in God) will punish you.
A defensible morality is one where the person putting it forward can give good reasons as to why the moral code should be obeyed. On that basis, consequentialism is probably the most easily defended moral basis. In consequentialism, one looks at the outcomes of actions and, based on whether the outcome is desirable or not desirable according to some criterion, judges it to be right or wrong. The most familiar brand of consequentialism is utilitarianism, which looks to the consequences which will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Let's look at your post and see where you've gone wrong.
<i>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.</i>
A secular system such as utilitarianism is just as enforceable by a community, once standards become law.
<i>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.</i>
All more or less true.
<i>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.</i>
No. That is wrong. Unless the "seccularist" can defend his or her moral position with sound reasoning, it is not "just as valid" as anyone else's opinion. "What benefits me is good" is one possible basis for a moral philosophy, but it is not a defensible one.
<i>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.</i>
Wouldn't a religious person do exactly the same thing, if he felt that laws were wrong?
<i>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."</i>
I don't know why you choose the issue of abortion in particular here. Would you like to explain?
In any event, it is not a matter simply of not liking somebody else's morals. The question is whether the moral system being espoused is logically defensible.
<i>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.</i>
If that is truly the case, you have a moral duty to make sure that laws and behaviour are changed to conform to a defensible moral system.
<i>Such a system is not stable and depends totally upon Government law enforcement for it's own survival.</i>
Governments are made up of people who have moral systems too. In the case of the United States, the government is <b>elected</b> by the people. Whose fault is it if the government makes immoral laws? I'd say the ultimate responsibility must rest with the electors, wouldn't you?
Xevious:
Morals need not be based in religion. In fact, I would say that any moral system based <b>only</b> on some assumed higher authority is not ultimately defensible. To say "We shouldn't do X because God prohibits it" is not to advance any kind of moral argument against X. It is merely saying that if you do X, God (or somebody who believes in God) will punish you.
A defensible morality is one where the person putting it forward can give good reasons as to why the moral code should be obeyed. On that basis, consequentialism is probably the most easily defended moral basis. In consequentialism, one looks at the outcomes of actions and, based on whether the outcome is desirable or not desirable according to some criterion, judges it to be right or wrong. The most familiar brand of consequentialism is utilitarianism, which looks to the consequences which will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Let's look at your post and see where you've gone wrong.
<i>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.</i>
A secular system such as utilitarianism is just as enforceable by a community, once standards become law.
<i>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.</i>
All more or less true.
<i>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.</i>
No. That is wrong. Unless the "seccularist" can defend his or her moral position with sound reasoning, it is not "just as valid" as anyone else's opinion. "What benefits me is good" is one possible basis for a moral philosophy, but it is not a defensible one.
<i>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.</i>
Wouldn't a religious person do exactly the same thing, if he felt that laws were wrong?
<i>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."</i>
I don't know why you choose the issue of abortion in particular here. Would you like to explain?
In any event, it is not a matter simply of not liking somebody else's morals. The question is whether the moral system being espoused is logically defensible.
<i>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.</i>
If that is truly the case, you have a moral duty to make sure that laws and behaviour are changed to conform to a defensible moral system.
<i>Such a system is not stable and depends totally upon Government law enforcement for it's own survival.</i>
Governments are made up of people who have moral systems too. In the case of the United States, the government is <b>elected</b> by the people. Whose fault is it if the government makes immoral laws? I'd say the ultimate responsibility must rest with the electors, wouldn't you?
"In Ethics the issue of religion is a valid component but to be fair to others the debates should not dissolve into a purely religious discussion. When that does occur then a move of the thread to Religion seems reasonable"
And that's fine. When it becomes a debate about how to interput religious text, when the focus becomes religion, then move it. Until then I see no problem in religion being a small or large component of a debate focused on ethics.
"If you have a topic that is concerned with religious ethics then where would you place it? Religion, right?"
If you wished to discuss how a religion may view an ethic or deal with morals and such... very well.
But if I were a Christian coming to this site and wishing to debate a moral belief or law with hopes for input from atheists, moslems, jews and the bunch I would put it in ethics. Why? Because it is a matter of ethics, not a matter of a specific religious belief.
"Forum placement seems key to how you want the debate to proceed."
And that's the biggest point I make. (I use Anthony's name here because he's the mod, not to pick on him). Anthony seems to have made it quite clear that he is against morals decided by religion; particularily those regarding sexuality. Now, let's say a Christian comes along and wishes to debate ethics from her Christian standpoint, but with any ol' sciforums member who seems interested, regardless of religion. Said Christian posts a thread about, say, capital punishment and explains how she views the Bible to say that capital punishment is wrong. Now our young friend Star comes back with an emotional comment about how murderers and the bunch cannot be helped. At which point Tiassa makes his way to the thread to tell Star why her opinion is barbaric at best.
Well now, let's pretend the thread had started in religion. Our young Christian posts about why her religion calls capital punishment wrong. What response do we get? Probably a few religious folk replying with their views on how their religion deals with capital punishment. Maybe a couple non-religious folk at sciforums would try and explain their side, but not likely.
The point is that by making the thread in Ethics the young Christian will become educated (hopefully) on the other, non-religious views of this law from many of the senior members of sciforums who've seen this debate time and time again. If posted in Religion, what are the odds it gets the same number of pages devoted? Or, more exactly, the same number of quality pages with the focus being the ethics or law?
And that's fine. When it becomes a debate about how to interput religious text, when the focus becomes religion, then move it. Until then I see no problem in religion being a small or large component of a debate focused on ethics.
"If you have a topic that is concerned with religious ethics then where would you place it? Religion, right?"
If you wished to discuss how a religion may view an ethic or deal with morals and such... very well.
But if I were a Christian coming to this site and wishing to debate a moral belief or law with hopes for input from atheists, moslems, jews and the bunch I would put it in ethics. Why? Because it is a matter of ethics, not a matter of a specific religious belief.
"Forum placement seems key to how you want the debate to proceed."
And that's the biggest point I make. (I use Anthony's name here because he's the mod, not to pick on him). Anthony seems to have made it quite clear that he is against morals decided by religion; particularily those regarding sexuality. Now, let's say a Christian comes along and wishes to debate ethics from her Christian standpoint, but with any ol' sciforums member who seems interested, regardless of religion. Said Christian posts a thread about, say, capital punishment and explains how she views the Bible to say that capital punishment is wrong. Now our young friend Star comes back with an emotional comment about how murderers and the bunch cannot be helped. At which point Tiassa makes his way to the thread to tell Star why her opinion is barbaric at best.
Well now, let's pretend the thread had started in religion. Our young Christian posts about why her religion calls capital punishment wrong. What response do we get? Probably a few religious folk replying with their views on how their religion deals with capital punishment. Maybe a couple non-religious folk at sciforums would try and explain their side, but not likely.
The point is that by making the thread in Ethics the young Christian will become educated (hopefully) on the other, non-religious views of this law from many of the senior members of sciforums who've seen this debate time and time again. If posted in Religion, what are the odds it gets the same number of pages devoted? Or, more exactly, the same number of quality pages with the focus being the ethics or law?
Last edited:
spookz:
I am aware that ethics and religion overlap, and I have no objection to some religion cropping up in Ethics.
I do, however, support whatever actions Asguard wants to take regarding his moderation of this forum, as long as they are defensible and reasonable.
I am aware that ethics and religion overlap, and I have no objection to some religion cropping up in Ethics.
I do, however, support whatever actions Asguard wants to take regarding his moderation of this forum, as long as they are defensible and reasonable.
tyler i have come down HARD on this and the reason is that i have TRIED to be subtle with lady, it doesnt work, i DONT want to have her banned and am HOPING she will take the hint that a debate is more than
"god wrote it in the bible and ur satan"
thats not an ethical debate
untill she picks that up i have no choice but to mod hard
once that is clear to her then i can slip back to doing nothing
this may be a little unfair but i can do much about it
its NOT aceptable for every thread in here to go the way of homosexual laws and i will do everything i can to stop that from happerning
"god wrote it in the bible and ur satan"
thats not an ethical debate
untill she picks that up i have no choice but to mod hard
once that is clear to her then i can slip back to doing nothing
this may be a little unfair but i can do much about it
its NOT aceptable for every thread in here to go the way of homosexual laws and i will do everything i can to stop that from happerning
Gaiasknight
Registered Member
I agree with Asguard here, Lady went WAY too far with the whole God/Satan issue. This is ethics, based on the laws of society and morality, whilst religion was a building block of these 2, the fact is we would need proof on WHY it is wrong, not some 2000year or so old book with geriatric quotes.
I for one am completely open to a debate and am not willing to side with anyone on the issue (I for on enjoy the chance to use my mind) and hope that some people would tone down the whole god thing.
I mean, no offence or anything, but have you considered not all here are Catholic? I avoid the religious section because the Catholic religion is, in my opinion, offensive to my belief system. I would greatly appreciate if the religious propaganda could be minimised so I can enjoy what I came here for:
A debate concerning Ethics, Morality and Justice.
Remember, the bane of knowledge is ignorance, and to hide behind your religion throwing accusations of satanic intent is only ridding yourself of potential knowledge.
I for one am completely open to a debate and am not willing to side with anyone on the issue (I for on enjoy the chance to use my mind) and hope that some people would tone down the whole god thing.
I mean, no offence or anything, but have you considered not all here are Catholic? I avoid the religious section because the Catholic religion is, in my opinion, offensive to my belief system. I would greatly appreciate if the religious propaganda could be minimised so I can enjoy what I came here for:
A debate concerning Ethics, Morality and Justice.
Remember, the bane of knowledge is ignorance, and to hide behind your religion throwing accusations of satanic intent is only ridding yourself of potential knowledge.