There is no way you could go out in public with those ideas unless you really believed them. Their views are far from a gravy train to success.
There is no way you could go out in public with those ideas unless you really believed them.
Their views are far from a gravy train to success.
Agreed, naturally.
I would say more than one.Okay - but is not such a movement the goal of philosophical thought in at least one major religion today?
In part yes, but I think it is also cultural as well. But then, when you consider that religious texts also absorbed much of the cultures of the days it was originally written. And I mean that for all religions..Paraphyletic or polyphyletic in origin, I feel those religions are to blame for those failures, to some extent. I don't think you can sue, lest a particular faith or organization itself is complicit in crime, but in some cases this is so.
Of course it does not. I think a range of factors, upbringing, society, culture, how one personally interprets one's religious text, education, all share a burden.Agreed. I don't know to what extent a theology bears this burden. Certainly it is possible to say that a given collection of ideas may be a bad idea, based on content. This is not to exclude application.
While it was the outgrowth of Mein Kampf, the basic hatred Hitler felt started from his own beliefs and possibly from what he had absorbed from culture during his up-bringing.The Final Solution of the Nazis was the outgrowth of Mein Kampf. I remember this from reading it ages ago. There was anti-Semitism in Europe before this, but it had no organization and no common liturgy. Hate may never be eradicated - probably never will be. But organized hate can be interdicted, cut off and eventually destroyed.
I think you give them too much credit. I think they do believe what they believe.quadraphonics said:Don't get it twisted - WBC is simply a lawsuit troll. It isn't even about the actual "beliefs" (which nobody at all appears to actually hold sincerely). It's a way of baiting authorities into doing things that violate the First Amendment, so that WBC can sue them for a profit.
That was not what I meant.Sure there were. In addition to Mein Kampf, there was the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm sure you could find many other less noted texts in the long history of European anti-Semitism.
There was an extensive Hutu Power media campaign leading up to that genocide, employing newsletters and radio. Considering that Rwanda has less than universal literacy and a less-than-developed book publishing and distribution economy, the reliance on radio seems a straightforward adaptation of the same techniques.
Of course they will. They always have.Right, and they're also gonna use various media as propaganda tools to amplify and spread their message, and attempt to enlist the wider polity. We may not ever be able to get rid of the haters themselves, but we can sure as hell prevent them from co-opting enough of the polity to gain control and act out their impulses on a wide scale. And we do that by monitoring and resisting their propaganda efforts and efforts to co-opt public spaces like the media, church, state and public square.
The problem comes when people don't live in a free society where they can make up their own minds about religion. Mostly, this happens due to religion. When a particular religion gains political power, it can become hegemonic and totalitarian. I can give you numerous examples of violent acts which would not have happened if not for religion.
It's an interesting question.Are philosophies something that occur in nature?
This is true in terms of relative morality. However, I do wonder if we could state that indeed, what they did was immoral. Done. If that's true, then it may be possible to determine which parts of the Bible, Qur'an etc... are immoral. We could theoretically eliminate those parts.To some, I would dare say most on this forum, it would be considered immoral. But to those who burned him, it was moral, even if it DID violate Qur'anic instructions.
This is interesting.Understanding the underlying objective truth about morality is absolutely fine. Morality can even be presently defined objectively as a psychological phenomena. The only thing you can't do is propose a scenario and ask whether or not it is objectively moral. To ask a question like that requires morality to objectively exist independent of subjective thought (which it does not). The only valid question you can ask about a proposed scenario is whether or not another person finds it moral or not, which is their subjective opinion.
It's an interesting question.
This is true in terms of relative morality. However, I do wonder if we could state that indeed, what they did was immoral. Done. If that's true, then it may be possible to determine which parts of the Bible, Qur'an etc... are immoral. We could theoretically eliminate those parts.
This is interesting.
So, blue is something all humans subjectively experience (assuming a normal functioning nervous system). Initially people just knew there was blue. They didn't know that blue was a wavelength of light. Incidentally, we don't have a photoreceptor for blue (488nm). We have a photoreceptor for violet and green and red and fill in the missing information as blue. So, blue is truly subjective. Due to it shading (according to Spidergoats link) it was verbally the same as green. But, whatever it is, it exists and it's purely an invention of our mind.
Yet, we ALL see blue.
We can do some objective tests that test for blue subjectivity.
What I wonder, is if there isn't some similar things going on in our mind for morality? If we look across all nations are there some similarities we can see is the blue of the morality world? I don't think there's any nation where you can just walk up to any child and harm them. This just wouldn't be normal. Why? We have different cultures, languages, histories, yet share this similarity. Doesn't that suggest "do not harm innocent people" might be an objective moral?
Do you see how you have already answered your question? Morality is in the eye of the beholder. It is determined by how we interpret reality. A mother may believe she is helping her child by cutting off his foreskin. But if the child could speak for himself, he would likely scream, "mommy no! don't let them cut my pee pee!" and he would wonder why his parents would allow someone to hurt him. Harm is also defined subjectively. I consider it harmful to keep my daughter locked up away from boys. Her father thinks it is harmful to allow her to date and make her own decisions. We obviously disagree and my daughter is glad she lives with me and not him.Yes, even spanking, but this is the thing - they don't see that as harming their children. But 'helping' them (in some odd convoluted logic) and protecting them. If you truly think that a God wants a part of your son's penis cut off, then cutting it off is saving your son's life. When a child get's close to a light socket you could sit down and explain to them it's dangerous, or smack them. Either way, you actually think you're helping them.
And that's the thing, perhaps we should look past the actions and only at the underlying motivation - which seems to be to help and protect children. THEN go back and look at the actions once we determine what the moral principle is. Then we can say: That action was immoral. This action is moral. Etc....
I don't think there's a nation on earth where you could grab a child from a mother and start walking off and not have the mother attack you to defend her off spring. And, other animals do this too. So, it's not even conscious per say. Hell, maybe consciousness IS the problem .... I mean, when you start justifying the cutting of penises off children, I'd argue that such a brain might actually be damaged and no longer "see" color / act morally. If you damage your vision, for you, there is no more color. Perhaps certain religious memes damage the moral part of the brain? No more morality?
Sticking a needle into the retina will destroy vision. Sticking a needle into the frontal lobe can destroy morality (in some people - not all). Defending children, for a normal human, seems to be, somewhat, innate. Like seeing color. To stop a human from defending children you need years and years of psychological damage inflicted against the brain to get it to "think" harming children is "good". Like sticking a needle into the retina. Normal function is lost. Or burning a mentally handicap man.
I don't disagree that something is subjective. Blue is subjective. However there must be a brain to create that subjectivity in itself. The brain is objective. The circuitry in the brain is objective. The chemistry that drive the neurocircuity and creates the blue is objective.DThe term "harm" is linked to "morality". Both are subjective. You are trying to determine the difference between justifiable homicide and murder. Both are killing but they differ only in motivation. If there were an absolute morality, motivation would likely have nothing to do with it. But there isn't an absolute morality. Every human being decides for themselves what is moral and what is not based on the desired outcome they hope to achieve. Basically if the end justifies the means then it is moral. And for no two humans will this always be the same. Therefore, morality is always subjective.
People will always be able to find some form of religious justifications to further their own hateful means and beliefs.
I'm not clear on whether sociopaths have no empathy for their own family members. If they do, then they may simply be throwbacks to the pre-agricultural Stone Age, when the only people you could trust were the ones you had depended on and cared for since birth.
My primary criticism of the Abrahamic religions is that they reinforce our Stone Age tribal instincts. They teach their followers that they're just a little bit better than everyone else, so it's not necessary to treat them with the same fairness they're expected to give each other. Sure, some of them have gotten over that, and some exhibit it merely by voting against our customs and traditions. But many exhibit it by using any opportunity to kill us as "heathens" and "infidels" whose goal is to seduce the weak and gullible within their own communities into adopting our evil ways.
Morality is only in our minds. So it is subjective. Actions are objective. They are events that can be determined as fact to have happened or not. Morality is the meaning we apply to those actions. If there was absolute objective morality then everything that happens in the universe would be moral or immoral. Is it immoral for an asteroid to hit a planet? NO. It is just something that happens. Morality is something that is a psychological construct of the human mind. That is why it is only applied to the actions of humans. We don't generally apply laws of morality to animals. If a pit bull kills a child we don't say the dog committed an immoral act. We say he did what pit bulls do. Then we in turn do what humans do and more likely than not kill the dog. Most people do not have a moral dilemma over that though PETA would give you a run for your money. Morality is something most people attribute to the existence of a soul. I rarely hear atheists say something is moral or immoral. The term morality implies a spiritual existence. Most atheists prefer the word "ethical" or "unethical" because it more accurately describes how we see things. Ethical meaning the action and its outcome is preferred by the majority of those who it would affect. Very close to being morality but not exactly the same connotation. I know I know semantics. The thing is, ethical is still mostly subjective but because it applies to the preferences of majority of people in general rather than a relatively small group who bases their preferences on the whims of a deity they invented, it has the potential to be more objective.I don't disagree that something is subjective. Blue is subjective. However there must be a brain to create that subjectivity in itself. The brain is objective. The circuitry in the brain is objective. The chemistry that drive the neurocircuity and creates the blue is objective.
Ourside of our subjective blue exists a real world with a real wavelength of real light. That is objective.
So, the outside is objective. The brain is objective. BUT the blueness we experience is subjective. That much I think we all agree on? What do you say up to this point?
Is morality then ONLY experienced? Could we say that the morality inside these men's minds was subjective and hence we'll never know anything about it (well, not yet anyway). However, we can observe their actions. Those are objective. Now I wonder if the actions are moral or the feelings inside these men's minds are what is moral. The actions are objectively real. Do they represent the morality or is the morality only what's in the minds of the men? If they represent morality, then much like the 488nm we have something we can measure. We also have brains and chemistry. That can be measured.
Perhaps we can never know what it is to experience subjective morality but we can, by describing actions and investigating brains, still possible to develop objective morality of actions?
Almost all humans see color. On a Gaussian distribution of normal perception I think BLUE could easily be identified to an alpha of 0.01 error. The same is true of the fear of death. I suppose along this route we come to the Golden Rule. Ha! Kind of full circle. If the Golden Rule is objectively true then what these men did was objective immoral.
I agree with you to an extent. But history shows that it is not in human nature to tolerate oppression. If a people feels oppressed it is normal human behavior to band together and rise up against the oppressors.
This is only possible where sufficient numbers make it possible
religion always brings out the worst in Humanity and always will
Exactly, thank you for making my point even without seeing it yourself.
But it is still on the oppressed to at least make it known that they feel oppressed so that they can get help.
What I am trying to say is that we act according to our nature in spite of religion. We cherry pick the parts that make us feel good and make up the rest. Those people burned that guy because they wanted him dead, their faith simply absolved them of the feeling of guilt that was sure to follow. That has been the purpose of religion since it began. To absolve people of the feeling of guilt they get when they act on their true animalistic nature.
Tragicomically, this goes for those who identify themselves as religious as well as those who identify themselves as non-religious.
Which suggests that the actual intention behind the hatred is not religious.
Haters are going to hate - whether they are religious or not.
I apologize. I misunderstood where you were coming from. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.Calm yourself down. It's not appropriate to assert that I haven't seen your issue merely because I disagree with you.
I do see your argument quite clearly; but you do not see that it is not merely a question of making the decision to rebel. How will you rebel, if you are the minority and the majority not merely disagrees with you or is ambivalent, but is actively hostile? It is normal instinct to rebel against oppressors, but it is not possible where neither demography nor power is on your side. Or, rather, it is not possible to be successful, as you note.
It's fine for the oppressed to make it known that they feel oppressed: and what then? What if no help is coming, as you allude to regarding minorities in Pakistan?
I understand your point but disagree. There would have been no reason to harm this man, save that he transgressed an arbitrary law about an imaginary sky-daddy. The scripts we write determine how the play is going to go. With a nicer script, you get a nicer but more boring play. I don't believe in the sensation of guilt without there having been a greater law that was transgressed. And if their faith absolved them of the guilt that was sure to follow, it still stands that it's somewhat culpable in all this.
In 1790, the Congress of the United States enacted that:
"If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH;..." source