The religious imperative

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Your point seemed to be about the dichotomy between what a religion says and what a practitioner might interpret. My point was that molestation of boys isn't an example of either one (what a religion says, what a practitioner might interpret). I've never heard an example of a priest justifying his abuse by saying that that is how he interpreted his religion, so the example didn't seem applicable to me.

So perhaps I didn't understand your point after all. But I disagree that words can't be heinous until someone acts on them and gives them a heinous meaning. If they represent an idea that is heinous, then they are heinous, whether or not they ever inspire heinous action.

Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

The problem with condemning the moral code of any faith (or any moral code with or without a faith involved) is that it cannot be done inside the moral code being considered. By every moral code, itself is the correct code to follow.

Therefore if one wishes to judge a moral code it must be done from outside of the code that is being judged. And since this judgment is itself a moral pronouncement, it must be done from inside another moral code. And any judgments will be how near or far the code under scrutiny comes to matching the code being used to judge.

Until the day when an objective moral code is discovered, there is no right answer to questions along the lines of "what is my standing to judge their moral code."

[Cerin]

That's a good point, C_G. When we judge another perspective, what we're judging is how it looks from our perspective. We can't know what it looks like from the perspective of the adherent (except as an intellectual exercise, if we have a detailed knowledge of that belief system).

[Tar-Palantir]

Celendril Gildinaur said: "The problem with condemning the moral code of any faith (or any moral code with or without a faith involved) is that it cannot be done inside the moral code being considered. By every moral code, itself is the correct code to follow. "

That view assumes that religions are nothing more than the moral code - but really the moral code of a religion is not its highest or most inclusive attribute.

For example, there are conventionally supposed to be three transcendental 'goods' - virtue (the moral code), beauty and truth. 'The good' therefore actually includes virtue as one of at least three attributes.

So, in principle, morality can be judged by larger criteria.

Also, a moral code is only a partial summaryand approximation of morality. For Christians any specific list of dos and don'ts can only stand as an approximation for 'the morality that flows from a God-centred perspective' or something of that kind.

Sin is not ultimately a list of prohibitions and failures to perform compulsory acts; sin is (roughly) a self-centred perspective. The dos and don'ts are 'just' those things that are nearly-always - but not necessarily under every conceivable circumstance - a product of this sinful perspective.

[yovargas]

The problem with condemning the moral code of any faith (or any moral code with or without a faith involved) is that it cannot be done inside the moral code being considered. By every moral code, itself is the correct code to follow.

Therefore if one wishes to judge a moral code it must be done from outside of the code that is being judged. And since this judgment is itself a moral pronouncement, it must be done from inside another moral code. And any judgments will be how near or far the code under scrutiny comes to matching the code being used to judge.

Until the day when an objective moral code is discovered, there is no right answer to questions along the lines of "what is my standing to judge their moral code."

A society that thinks murdering each other is a Good thing is wrong. That society's eventual demise will quickly prove that they were wrong - it was not Good for their society.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Some concepts may transcend boxes of specific moral codes (yova has a good example). Is that a product of the changeable nature of cultures throughout history? Is it accidental that jews, greeks and egyptians (just to pick three) each viewed murder as something negative in their societies?

[Frelga]

Is it accidental that jews, greeks and egyptians (just to pick three) each viewed murder as something negative in their societies?

I think it may have something to do with the fact that people in general view being murdered as something negative.

But when dicsussing something less dramatic than murder, you need to remember that an exchange of ideas existed among all three societies you named and that they all helped form Western Civilization as it exist today, and the Islamic world as well. Maybe if we looked at Jews, Escimos and Maori we'd have a better chance of finding themes that transcend specific culture.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Maybe if we looked at Jews, Escimos and Maori we'd have a better chance of finding themes that transcend specific culture.

Why do people (and different cultures) view murder as negative?

I won't stop you. Do you think there is more value in using cultures separated by thousands of miles?

[River]

Less cross-talk. If the same idea arose independently from different environments, that suggests that it might be an absolute.

I think murder gets viewed as a negative across cultural bounds because humans are social and self-aware. We know we live. We feel it when someone among our group is gone. Therefore, we like to keep the subtractions from our numbers relatively controlled. It's not okay to just up and kill someone, deprive them and the rest of the group of their life, for no good reason because they'll be missed. Now, what constitutes a good reason within a group is going to vary. In most societies, if someone's trying to kill you you're free to kill 'em right back, but past that it ranges from "never ever" to "if they grievously insult your honor", whatever honor is within that group. Also, what constitutes murder can also vary - if you view another group of human beings as less than your group, would killing one of them count as murder? And how is it that most societies seem to be so able and willing to differentiate between killings done by murder and killings done by warfare (okay, after the first shot, maybe you can argue self defense, but what about the person who fired that first shot?)?

[Maria]

Widow burning (sati) was a socially accepted form of murder in India once.

The practice of sati, and its later legal abolition by the British (along with the suppression of the thuggee) went on to become one of the standard justifications for British rule. British attitudes in their later history in India are usually given in the following much repeated quote, usually ascribed to General Napier -

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

[solicitr]

Not to mention Roman spectator sports, and the Aztecs' mass cardiovascular surgery festivals. Neither of these were remote primitive tribes, but very advanced civilizations.

[River]

Those were sanctioned murders though. Unsanctioned murders were still punished in those societies.

[solicitr]

That line gets awfully narrow, though- especially since a Roman paterfamilias had the right of life and death over his family and could (and sometimes did) kill his wife or children.

'Sanctioned murders' is really kind of circular, don't you think? If the proposition being advanced in favor of a universal moral understanding is that 'all societies condemn murder,' then it doesn't work to argue that 'these societies condemn murder, except when they don't.' Plainly their moral understanding lacked somewhat in the universality department.

[The Tall Hobbit]

Nearly all societies condemn murder, but they vary greatly in their definitions of exactly what type(s) of killing constitute murder.

[yovargas]

If the proposition being advanced in favor of a universal moral understanding is that 'all societies condemn murder,'

That's not quite what I'm proposing; it's that societies that condemn murder will do better then ones that don't. Thus, in a "survival of the fittest" kinda way, as time goes on, more and more societies frown on needless killing.

[Dave_LF]

It seems reasonable to believe that all non-psychopaths share some basic ideas about morality/fair-play due to reasoning premised on the value of empathy and reciprocation (and even psychopaths could arrive at these ideas through reason; they just don't value empathy). Cultural ideas about morality, on the other hand, are learned and variable. It is therefore rational to tell a person from another culture that his cultural mores are wrong if they conflict with our shared innate ideas of kindness. Now, if he's consciously rejected these ideas in favor of his cultural ones he's not going to care, but it is still reasonable to point it out.

[solicitr]

Cultural and moral relativism, moral equivalency, and political correctness have all contributed to a modern political culture whose elites and cultural symbols evidence, not only an undue tolerance of the illiberals, but a disturbing element of self-hatred, cultural masochism, and delusions about the difference between social tolerance and political tolerance-- and an elevation of tolerance over the principle of justice.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/political- ... can-power/

[MithLuin]

It could be argued that the Waodani of Ecuador did not have a prohibition against murder/homicide. Spearing one another was exceedingly commonplace, such that most people in a family tree died of violence at the hands of another person.

Whether this was just because the society was extremely violent or because they don't find murder particularly problematic would be hard to say. But it was certainly a culture that valued strength, and you were expected to attack and kill people to prove yourself in certain situations. Supposedly, it's less violent now.

Not surprisingly, the rest of the world found out about them when they started spearing workers who came into the rainforest for lumber and oil exploration (IIRC).

According to wikipedia, killing snakes and eating deer is considered taboo.



But anyway, yeah, I think there are universals when it comes to human interactions and morality. It's just a matter of actually living up to them. Lots of people who commit murder think it's wrong, but they did it anyway.

[vison]

Survival of the fittest, as I'm sure we all know here, does NOT mean, "survival of the toughest, meanest, nastiest SOBs". It means survival of the most fit. Most suited.

The most suitable sort of human being is the one who has empathy, can cooperate, will care for others in the certainty that she will be cared for in turn. Will share information and teach skills. Without those attributes, our species would have vanished long ago. Those morons who bray about "social Darwinism" don't know zip, if they think it means Nazi Germany.

Our species survived and thrived on "social Darwinism". Those cultures that don't? Hm. Let's look around the world and see, shall we?

[solicitr]

Survival of the fittest, as I'm sure we all know here, does NOT mean, "survival of the toughest, meanest, nastiest SOBs". It means survival of the most fit. Most suited. The most suitable sort of human being is the one who has empathy, can cooperate, will care for others in the certainty that she will be cared for in turn

However, those societies which were not capable of producing tough, mean nasty SOBs when necessary did in fact vanish long ago.

I would say "will care for others in the hope that she will be cared for in turn- but hedges her bets."