UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:I like to sum up Nietzsche's critique of Christian compassion like this...
So the christian argument goes like this. Christianity brought into being a society in which God chooses the weak, even taking the form of a slave. Of course, none of this proves anything directly, but if you believe in your deepest intuition that this, and not Nietzsche's view of life is sane and good, that would be taken by many as some indication that revelation is taking place.
quote:I can understand why a Christian would prefer to limit discussion to Chrisitianity-as-an-abstract-ideal without any reference to Christianity-as-it-exists (largely for the same reasons a Communist would prefer to discuss Communism-as-an-abstract-ideal instead of Communism-as-it-exists), but why do you consider it reasonable to expect that non-Christians likewise limit themselves?
Originally posted by anteater:
Nietzche is rather beloved of Christian apologists because he at least hated christianity for what christians believe to be true of their faith, as opposed to "The new atheists" who dismiss christianity for what christians believe to be a mixture of some truth, a lot of over simplication a fair amount of nonsense.
<snip>
So the christian argument goes like this. Christianity brought into being a society in which God chooses the weak, even taking the form of a slave. Of course, none of this proves anything directly, but if you believe in your deepest intuition that this, and not Nietzsche's view of life is sane and good, that would be taken by many as some indication that revelation is taking place.
To which most atheists reply: Rubbish, pointing both to the imperfect history of christian institutions, and the great amount of good done by non-religious people and groups.
All of which is true.
quote:I'm with Mousethief.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is there any reason at all to suppose Nietzsche would support acts of charity to Untermenschen? His anthropology was based on a distinction between worthwhile people and scum who don't deserve anything but to be stepped upon by the worthwhile people.
quote:Good heavens! Seriously, this all sounds just like how British politicians talk about our education system.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I'm with Mousethief.
Nietzsche was quite explicitly opposed to any support given by the strong to the weak, as it inhibited their ability to flourish into their own greatness. He would deride even the desire to do good for the worse-off as a vestige of the Judeo-Christian slave morality.
The Nietzschean worldview is this: ninety-five percent of the people in the world are sheep, not real human beings. They exist to be used by the other five percent for the flourishing of the great and strong. Nietzsche's goal is not to liberate the ninety-five percent, but to wake up the five percent to their greatness and potential. The strong are seen as predators, and the weak their prey; it is actually, according to Nietzsche, as cruel to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak as it would be to prevent the lion from eating the lamb.
There is literally no moral system further from Christianity than what Nietzsche is discussing. That shouldn't be surprising, since it's contained entirely within a vicious criticism of Christianity.
quote:This dilemma probably tormented Thomas Carlyle as a precurser of Nietzsche, and partly explained his popularity as a writer in a generation whose readers already had a sense of the same disquiet. Likewise with Thomas Hardy when he wrote his poem God's Funeral. Unable any longer to believe in God, or at least Christ, they could not find a benign substitute. According to A.N. Wilson, Carlyle realized how easily the God-shaped hole in a human mind could be filled by the Uebermensch. This insight horrified him, but it must also have fascinated him: Goebbels chose Carlyle's biography of Frederick the Great to read aloud to his Fuehrer in the bunker.
Originally posted by Enoch:
The Nietzchean vision of the good life is so unpleasant, that it would make one wish Christianity were true even if one didn't already know that it is.
quote:Human beings – that’s who .
Originally posted by anteater:
Do you see no danger that the erosion of Christianity could lead to an erosion of compassion for the weak? Who. Else will champion them, and on what basis?
quote:It works like this.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I can understand why a Christian would prefer to limit discussion to Chrisitianity-as-an-abstract-ideal without any reference to Christianity-as-it-exists (largely for the same reasons a Communist would prefer to discuss Communism-as-an-abstract-ideal instead of Communism-as-it-exists), but why do you consider it reasonable to expect that non-Christians likewise limit themselves?
quote:A real pity he didn't apply that good thought to the often "uncongenial" expressions of his thoughts in his writing. Often he comes across as thoroughly nasty.
One often contradicts an opinion when what is uncongenial is really the tone in which it was conveyed.
quote:A complex, often haunted man, whose writings seem to me to be full of hyperbole and contradiction. I think he wrestled a lot with his internal inconsistencies and in the end they got the better of him.
Christianity is called the religion of pity. Pity stands opposed to the tonic emotions which heighten our vitality: it has a depressing effect. We are deprived of strength when we feel pity. That loss of strength which suffering as such inflicts on life is still further increased and multiplied by pity. Pity makes suffering contagious.
quote:I don't think this argument works.
No I don't - the old canard of no morality without Christianity is both ridiculous because the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary and self-defeating through simple observation of the behaviour of many Christians.
quote:To be fair, the number of people slaughtered by repressive regimes correlates with the state's administrative ability. Had St Louis IX of France wanted to repress his subjects, the organisation of his state wouldn't really have been up to it.
Originally posted by anteater:
Has nobody noticed that with the decline of religion in the West, which really got going in the 17th century, the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes has got bigger and bigger.
quote:Contrary to the observed behaviour of many atheists, the magic words 'old canard' do not suffice to turn a straw man defence into a cogent response.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
No I don't - the old canard of no morality without Christianity is both ridiculous because the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary and self-defeating through simple observation of the behaviour of many Christians.
quote:Given that the laws of hospitality, the Golden Rule, and a positive opinion of charity seem to be some of the most widespread and common beliefs in human culture, including non-Christian and pre-Christian societies, the notion that these things are peculiarly unique to Christianity doesn't withstand scrutiny. In other words, your concern that Christianity alone is concerned with the treatment of the weak is just plain wrong. A lot of people seem to have been able to work out a similar system independently, and on a variety of different bases.
Originally posted by anteater:
Of course morality can exist without christianity, as it plainly did before. That is not the issue. The question is: What sort of morality?
quote:Have you noticed that "the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes" has gotten bigger as world population has gotten bigger? (Total world population at the dawn of the 17th century is estimated at about 550 million, roughly the same as the present population of the EU's 27 member nations.) It's been argued that on a per capita basis, the twentieth century was actually the least violent on record, despite containing the Holocaust and two world wars.
Originally posted by anteater:
Has nobody noticed that with the decline of religion in the West, which really got going in the 17th century, the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes has got bigger and bigger.
quote:It's a logical fallacy. Citing the existence of immoral Christians in this context is a species of denying the antecedent, which is not a valid argument.
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:I don't think this argument works.
No I don't - the old canard of no morality without Christianity is both ridiculous because the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary and self-defeating through simple observation of the behaviour of many Christians.
quote:Well I certainly do not think that is true of classical antiquity, but the discussion is a long one. The main point of my post is to ask whether you believe that compassion for the weak follows from the nature of reality, so that a view like Nietzsche's could be shown to be against reality and provably detrimental. Or does his view of life have equal right to be believed since neither can be shown to be based on anything remotely provable?
A lot of people seem to have been able to work out a similar system independently, and on a variety of different bases.
quote:I doubt it can be claimed as least violent. If you look at this page which calculates deaths as a percentage of world population, you can see it was pretty violent. If you take a rough sum of all the deaths by war, genocide and induced famine in the C20 it's about 13% of the world died. The only century that beats it is the C14 which contained the Mongol invasions of Asia and Europe, the violent transition to the Ming dynasty in China, and Tamerlaine's conquests. All together this was probably around 17% as a rough guess. The C18 had around 11% and C17 had about 7.5%.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Have you noticed that "the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes" has gotten bigger as world population has gotten bigger? (Total world population at the dawn of the 17th century is estimated at about 550 million, roughly the same as the present population of the EU's 27 member nations.) It's been argued that on a per capita basis, the twentieth century was actually the least violent on record, despite containing the Holocaust and two world wars.
Originally posted by anteater:
Has nobody noticed that with the decline of religion in the West, which really got going in the 17th century, the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes has got bigger and bigger.
quote:The mere existence of something like the laws of hospitality argue that classical antiquity was fairly concerned with protecting the weak an vulnerable. I'd even go so far as to argue that the portrayal of Thrasymachos in Plato's Republic is kind of a proto-Nietzche. Most of the book is devoted to picking apart the argument of Thrasymachos and explaining in excruciating detail why he's wrong.
Originally posted by anteater:
Croesus:
quote:Well I certainly do not think that is true of classical antiquity, but the discussion is a long one.
A lot of people seem to have been able to work out a similar system independently, and on a variety of different bases.
quote:I've got no comprehensive figures presently at hand, but the figure for the nineteenth century seems drastically understated. Just the military deaths from the Napoleonic Wars total about 2.5 million (estimates vary), and that was just at the start of the 19th century.
Originally posted by anteater:
As to your point about population, this is interesting and I may do some digging. But my initial trawl of sites purporting to list deaths by state violence gives:
C20: ~200 m dead. Average population 4.25 bn
C19: ~1.5 m dead. Average population 1.32 bn
Do you have any better figures? I agree mine are very preiminary. But I see little sign that the demise of religion has led to peace for all.
quote:Part of the problem with this methodology is that it is, in part, based on classification. For instance, if the broad conflict we refer to as "the Napoleonic Wars" (to continue from the previous example) were split into individual conflicts (The War of the Third Coalition, the Invasion of Russia, the Hundred Days, etc.) a lot of them would drop off the linked list altogether. In other words, it's not at all clear that a few really big wars necessarily kill more people than a larger number of small, poorly documented wars.
Originally posted by Hawk:
I doubt it can be claimed as least violent. If you look at this page which calculates deaths as a percentage of world population, you can see it was pretty violent. If you take a rough sum of all the deaths by war, genocide and induced famine in the C20 it's about 13% of the world died. The only century that beats it is the C14 which contained the Mongol invasions of Asia and Europe, the violent transition to the Ming dynasty in China, and Tamerlaine's conquests. All together this was probably around 17% as a rough guess. The C18 had around 11% and C17 had about 7.5%.
Obviously these numbers are hardly complete or precise, but they give a rough estimate. No matter the precise figures, the twentieth century was certainly one of the most violent centuries.
quote:Does not Christianity come from classical antiquity?
Originally posted by anteater:
Croesus:
quote:Well I certainly do not think that is true of classical antiquity, but the discussion is a long one...
A lot of people seem to have been able to work out a similar system independently, and on a variety of different bases.
quote:This is the first list I found on wikipedia. If you proportion it to world population, the Mongols come out far ahead of anything else. But they're not really relevant to a discussion of Christianity, unless you're going to blame them on Genghis Khan's mummy issues. Most of the rest of the top ten are in China. China was until recently not noted for its Christian piety; though Christianity was a major factor in the Taiping Rebellion. If we confine ourselves to Europe, I think the question of whether the 20th Century was proportionally more violent depends on whether you take low or high estimates for the numbers killed in the Thirty Years War and the total population of Europe at the time.
Originally posted by anteater:
As to your point about population, this is interesting and I may do some digging. But my initial trawl of sites purporting to list deaths by state violence gives:
C20: ~200 m dead. Average population 4.25 bn
C19: ~1.5 m dead. Average population 1.32 bn
quote:As I understand it, the laws of hospitality care for the weak and vulnerable in the same sense that diplomatic immunity does. They're largely aimed at guests of the same social class.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The mere existence of something like the laws of hospitality argue that classical antiquity was fairly concerned with protecting the weak an vulnerable.
quote:Three points to make: it's arguable that Thrasymachos is in the Republic because Plato considers him representative of the considerations guiding Athenian foreign policy. He was known at the time as a teacher of rhetoric. Plato and Socrates were not representative of Athenian society. Secondly, Plato's virtues in the Republic notably do not include care for the weak and vulnerable. He doesn't even consider that as part of morality. Thirdly, Plato's counterargument depends heavily on the existence of non-naturalistic entities. He's not really a good ally if you want to argue that morality can have a naturalistic basis.
I'd even go so far as to argue that the portrayal of Thrasymachos in Plato's Republic is kind of a proto-Nietzche. Most of the book is devoted to picking apart the argument of Thrasymachos and explaining in excruciating detail why he's wrong.
quote:Those aren't exclusive. Marxism is heavily influenced by Christianity, just as liberal humanism is.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Whilst no state can claim anything like a perfect record when it comes to human rights, I don't see how it could be argued that there is no difference between modern cultures heavily influenced by Christianity, and those heavily influenced by other philosophies.
quote:One of the most common dishonesties associated with Communist death statistics, particularly in regard to the PRC, is that they often include deaths better attributed to incompetence or failed policies in addition to deaths from purges or revolts. For instance, the Great Leap Forward was an honest attempt at industrialization and the widespread famine that followed its collapse was a truly unintended consequence. (Unlike Stalin's artificial famines.) It makes as much sense to count this as "deliberate killing" as it does to blame Christian missionaries for "murdering" Native Americans by spreading smallpox and swine flu.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
On the question of statistics, we might also consider violent deaths in states influenced by philosophies other than Christianity. Taking state sponsored atheism, for example there were 66 million under Lenin, Stalin and Kruschev between 32 and 61 million killed by Chinese regime since 1949, and 1/3 of the 8 million Khmers - 2.7 million were killed between 1975 and 1975 by the Khmer Rouge (Guinness book of world records 1992).
quote:Christianity has a two millennium history. Why restrict analysis of it to modern times? That seems a bit like cherry picking.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Whilst no state can claim anything like a perfect record when it comes to human rights, I don't see how it could be argued that there is no difference between modern cultures heavily influenced by Christianity, and those heavily influenced by other philosophies.
quote:This seems like "argument by wishful thinking". In short, you seem to be arguing that it would be good if someone dispensed justice to oppressors, therefore the Christian God (or similar entity) must exist. Preferring something be true is not evidence that it is true.
Originally posted by anteater:
So my thesis is that if christianity is true, then it means the God, who has made public the fact that he is on the side of the dispossessed will triumph. Which means any actions designed to oppress and enslave the weak will be be met with His judgement.
quote:But not, I think we would agree, in the way the Stalinist and post-Stalinist Communists regarded human life.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Those aren't exclusive. Marxism is heavily influenced by Christianity, just as liberal humanism is.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Whilst no state can claim anything like a perfect record when it comes to human rights, I don't see how it could be argued that there is no difference between modern cultures heavily influenced by Christianity, and those heavily influenced by other philosophies.
quote:We're back to that abstract ideal vs. as-exists distinction I mentioned earlier, aren't we?
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:But not, I think we would agree, in the way the Stalinist and post-Stalinist Communists regarded human life.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Those aren't exclusive. Marxism is heavily influenced by Christianity, just as liberal humanism is.
quote:John Harsanyi veil of ignorance seems like a fairly decent jumping off point that doesn't rely on supernatural revelation.
Originally posted by anteater:
Is there anything deriveable from a totally materialistic view of reality that makes such actions irrational?
quote:When traveling in a sparsely populated desert, everyone is weak and vulnerable. I'd guess that the laws of hospitality arose particularly out of those conditions.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The mere existence of something like the laws of hospitality argue that classical antiquity was fairly concerned with protecting the weak an vulnerable.
quote:This was run by a brutally repressive regime with a dictatorial madman at the helm, which imprisoned and executed any dissenters, either repressed, exterminated or ignored the engineers and skilled members of society that could have potentially made the attempt a success, and ran something akin to concentration camps in the villages to force the process along.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For instance, the Great Leap Forward was an honest attempt at industrialization and the widespread famine that followed its collapse was a truly unintended consequence.
quote:I may have missed it. Can you point out where it was claimed that non-Christians can not be moral? What exactly is the connection between your post and the post you are responding to?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that the laws of hospitality, the Golden Rule, and a positive opinion of charity seem to be some of the most widespread and common beliefs in human culture, including non-Christian and pre-Christian societies, the notion that these things are peculiarly unique to Christianity doesn't withstand scrutiny. In other words, your concern that Christianity alone is concerned with the treatment of the weak is just plain wrong. A lot of people seem to have been able to work out a similar system independently, and on a variety of different bases.
quote:It's a triumph then! A boon for humanity. No doubt they will be smuggling
Originally posted by anteater:
Have you noticed that "the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes" has gotten bigger as world population has gotten bigger? (Total world population at the dawn of the 17th century is estimated at about 550 million, roughly the same as the present population of the EU's 27 member nations.) It's been argued that on a per capita basis, the twentieth century was actually the least violent on record, despite containing the Holocaust and two world wars.
quote:No, the "gloss" is trying to conflate victims of unintentional famine with victims of deliberate murder by a standard that wouldn't be applied to Chiang Kai-shek or Lord John Russell because you're worried people will think Mao Zedong is okay if they find out he deliberately killed "only" twelve million* people.
Originally posted by mdijon:
This was run by a brutally repressive regime with a dictatorial madman at the helm, which imprisoned and executed any dissenters, either repressed, exterminated or ignored the engineers and skilled members of society that could have potentially made the attempt a success, and ran something akin to concentration camps in the villages to force the process along.
Calling it an "honest attempt at industrialization" is a bit of a gloss.
quote:Always glad to oblige. The point wasn't that non-Christians couldn't be moral, but rather than non-Christians would never be interested in helping "the weak", however defined. It seemed to genuinely perplex our thread opener:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I may have missed it. Can you point out where it was claimed that non-Christians can not be moral? What exactly is the connection between your post and the post you are responding to?
quote:The underlying premise here is that absent Christianity, no one would feel compassion for "the vulnerable".
Originally posted by anteater:
What I'm getting at is that Christianity teaches, whether you believe it or not, that support for the vulnerable is an unqualified good. Nietzsche sees it as an unqualified bad.
Do you see no danger that the erosion of Christianity could lead to an erosion of compassion for the weak? Who. Else will champion them, and on what basis?
quote:Shall we go through some of the standard undergraduate criticisms?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
John Harsanyi veil of ignorance seems like a fairly decent jumping off point that doesn't rely on supernatural revelation.
quote:I disagree - I suspect that people who believe that smoking leads to lung cancer are less likely to smoke than those who do not (though some will ignore the knowledge). Belief in christian teaching seems not to show a similar reduction.
Originally posted by anteater:
An analogy would be that the link between smoking and lung cancer is in doubt because people still smoke.
quote:What do you mean by “the christian belief” – one of the problems of talking with christian believers is that they all seem to have their own version of “the christian belief” – and sometimes believe that their superior belief justifies killing another person who claims to be a christian. (Cathars for example?)
When, as they often did, individuals and nations committed immoral acts, despite a claim to be christian, at no time could they justify those acts based on the christian belief.
quote:Back to defining morality. Many would choose to include altruism, others would say doing what is right despite contrary pressure. Some even think it something that justifies mass murder (relevant bit starts at 8:40). "If you can justify this as good is there anything left to call evil"
Of course morality can exist without christianity, as it plainly did before. That is not the issue. The question is: What sort of morality?
quote:a) Do you consider compassion to be physical?
Those who advocate eugenic programs are by no necessity nasty people. They simply have a different view of what is the best for the optimal happiness of the human race, and in their view, elimination of weaker strains is a positive move.
And apart from a view of humanity that goes beyond the purely physical, I cannot see any argument that could resist this idea. Maybe you can.
quote:I don't think that what is described regarding the concentration-camp-like conditions under the great leap forward and the wanton destruction of society can be described as unintentional famine.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
unintentional famine
quote:This used to be assumed by historians. Based on recent evidence coming to light, and particularly the outstanding work by the historians Jung Chang and Jon Halliday (I'd highly recommend their book Mao: The Untold Story), it's being revised. I believe it's now widely accepted that Mao both expected and planned for mass deaths as a result of his policies, yet continued with them anyway. He recieved many reports of the mass deaths yet pushed ahead with his policies, considering that the deaths were a price he was willing to pay. In fact, he expected even more deaths than occured.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:One of the most common dishonesties associated with Communist death statistics, particularly in regard to the PRC, is that they often include deaths better attributed to incompetence or failed policies in addition to deaths from purges or revolts. For instance, the Great Leap Forward was an honest attempt at industrialization and the widespread famine that followed its collapse was a truly unintended consequence. (Unlike Stalin's artificial famines.)
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
On the question of statistics, we might also consider violent deaths in states influenced by philosophies other than Christianity. Taking state sponsored atheism, for example there were 66 million under Lenin, Stalin and Kruschev between 32 and 61 million killed by Chinese regime since 1949, and 1/3 of the 8 million Khmers - 2.7 million were killed between 1975 and 1975 by the Khmer Rouge (Guinness book of world records 1992).
quote:It's the same question as whether killing civilians when you bomb infrastructure is morally equivalent to killing civilians by bombing them directly. Stalin and Mao were either wilfully ignorant or completely careless about deaths caused, but mass starvation was probably not the intention of their policies. The intention of both was probably to secure food supply to the cities. (People in the countryside who are short of food lie down and die; people in the cities start rioting and overthrowing the government.) For that matter, Winston Churchill's policies in India in the Second World War equally resulted in famine. Neither is quite the same as Hitler, who was pursuing policies with the intention of killing Jews.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I don't think that what is described regarding the concentration-camp-like conditions under the great leap forward and the wanton destruction of society can be described as unintentional famine.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
unintentional famine
quote:I don't read it like that. Mao wasn't just wilfully ignorant, he ordered a policy of brutal repression of anyone who tried to point out there was a problem with his policies. He either killed, imprisoned or forced into hiding the engineers who might have told him how to make iron that was useful as opposed to the useless lumps that he oversaw the production of. He did the same to those who might have been able to irrigate the fields for him.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Stalin and Mao were either wilfully ignorant or completely careless about deaths caused, but mass starvation was probably not the intention of their policies.
quote:No it's not, at least not in my book. It is a plain fact that non-religious people feel compassion, and I would never deny that. So can we put that canard to rest?
The underlying premise here is that absent Christianity, no one would feel compassion for "the vulnerable".
quote:Well quite - remembering also that a number of countries have condemned Stalin's policies in Ukraine as crimes against humanity. For a popular introduction to the issue see here or Google Holdomor for more references.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I don't think that what is described regarding the concentration-camp-like conditions under the great leap forward and the wanton destruction of society can be described as unintentional famine.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
unintentional famine
quote:You don't need (much of) a basis for your personal wishes. So if you want to spend your money on donkey sanctuaries, and seeing the happy donkeys in their sanctuaries makes you happy, then all the justification you need for that is that it makes you happy. If you want to convince somebody else to give to donkey sanctuaries, let alone get donkey sanctuaries funded out of public spending, then you need to offer other people reasons that they can accept.
Originally posted by mdijon:
If we accept that atheists have a basis for compassion it follows that they have a basis for intervening to prevent harm resulting to the objects of their compassion.
quote:And if I find that enough people agree with me that red-headed people are disgusting and shouldn't be allowed to marry each other?
Originally posted by mdijon:
On the other hand if you find that enough people agree with your preference that donkeys are well treated you have a democratic mandate for a law protecting donkeys from ill-treatment and for some public funding for donkey sanctuaries.
quote:Well you could argue that compassion is rational inasmuch as the person displaying compassion today, could be the same person who needs to receive it next year. It's about creating a certain cultural norm which recognises the vissitudes of life.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems very odd to argue that compassion is rational, since it seems to be a feeling. Can feelings be rational? On the other hand, I would not describe it as irrational, as that is pejorative.
quote:Well of course I agree with that. But there's a big "if" in there. How do you show it to be rational given a secular view of life? How do you demonstrate that Nietzsche's view is not just different to yours but wrong, in the sense of being wrongly aligned with reality as it is.
I don't understand how you draw the dichotomy, anteater.
If it is rational to be compassionate, then it is rational to ensure society runs on a compassionate basis.
quote:Why not? What is it about the reality of the universe which makes this irrational? Who decides?
It is not rational to value your right to be free of my compassionate values over the right of your intended victim to live in a compassionate world.
quote:I would call that a life strategy, as in game theory. But I don't think compassion can be summonsed up like that.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:Well you could argue that compassion is rational inasmuch as the person displaying compassion today, could be the same person who needs to receive it next year. It's about creating a certain cultural norm which recognises the vissitudes of life.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems very odd to argue that compassion is rational, since it seems to be a feeling. Can feelings be rational? On the other hand, I would not describe it as irrational, as that is pejorative.
quote:That sound more like practicality, not rationality. It might be practical for me to engage in some social convention like shaking hands but that doesn't make it a rational act, at least not to my mind.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:Well you could argue that compassion is rational inasmuch as the person displaying compassion today, could be the same person who needs to receive it next year. It's about creating a certain cultural norm which recognises the vissitudes of life.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems very odd to argue that compassion is rational, since it seems to be a feeling. Can feelings be rational? On the other hand, I would not describe it as irrational, as that is pejorative.
quote:Ay ay Mr Drewman. Problem with this idea is that compassion - "suffering with" implies a starting point of self-sacrifice and self-lessness. Kind of runs counter to the idea of having an attitude with utilitarian motivations.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:Well you could argue that compassion is rational inasmuch as the person displaying compassion today, could be the same person who needs to receive it next year. It's about creating a certain cultural norm which recognises the vissitudes of life.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems very odd to argue that compassion is rational, since it seems to be a feeling. Can feelings be rational? On the other hand, I would not describe it as irrational, as that is pejorative.
quote:It's all about practicality.
Originally posted by Squibs:
That sound more like practicality, not rationality.
quote:Can you expand on that please?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It's all about practicality.
Originally posted by Squibs:
That sound more like practicality, not rationality.
quote:But this just takes us back to the question discussed in the "You're False, I'm true" thread. If you fail to demonstrate that your particular brand of Christianity (as against, for eg Prosperity Theology) is correctly aligned to reality, the rationality or otherwise of a secular anti-Nietzschean view is moot.
How do you show it to be rational given a secular view of life? How do you demonstrate that Nietzsche's view is not just different to yours but wrong, in the sense of being wrongly aligned with reality as it is.
quote:That's a blatant bit of special pleading, isn't it?
Originally posted by Grokesx:
If you fail to demonstrate that your particular brand of Christianity (as against, for eg Prosperity Theology) is correctly aligned to reality, the rationality or otherwise of a secular anti-Nietzschean view is moot.
quote:So someone with a "secular view of life" has to demonstrate how his anti-Nietzschean view is aligned to reality, whereas the Christian merely needs to refer to Jesus without having to bother about any such alignment? That's barking.
That's a blatant bit of special pleading, isn't it?
quote:That would be barking. Perhaps you could explain to me why, 'special pleading for Christians is ok,' follows from, 'special pleading for atheists is wrong'?
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:So someone with a "secular view of life" has to demonstrate how his anti-Nietzschean view is aligned to reality, whereas the Christian merely needs to refer to Jesus without having to bother about any such alignment? That's barking.
That's a blatant bit of special pleading, isn't it?
quote:You're not thinking that artistic excellence is loveless, are you?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
@Alogon - is there any excellence other than (in) love?
quote:Dunno - you pulled me up but didn't pull Anteater up on his own special pleading. I just assumed you were fine with his argument.
Perhaps you could explain to me why, 'special pleading for Christians is ok,' follows from, 'special pleading for atheists is wrong
quote:There are a few issues here.
But this just takes us back to the question discussed in the "You're False, I'm true" thread. If you fail to demonstrate that your particular brand of Christianity (as against, for eg Prosperity Theology) is correctly aligned to reality, the rationality or otherwise of a secular anti-Nietzschean view is moot.
quote:Something here seems backwards.
...If I say that GIVEN Christianity compassion is rational whereas it is not GIVEN materialism, you can obviously say I am no more rational...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:In short Nietzche is beloved of Christian apologists because he allows them to keep their theoretical abstractions and not have to pay attention to the real world and what actually happens whenever Christians get temporal power?
Originally posted by anteater:
Nietzche is rather beloved of Christian apologists because he at least hated christianity for what christians believe to be true of their faith, as opposed to "The new atheists" who dismiss christianity for what christians believe to be a mixture of some truth, a lot of over simplication a fair amount of nonsense.
quote:Which speaks louder? Actions or words?
Nietzsche hated christianity as the religion of slaves and the weak, that exalted pity and despised power. And that is true, despite the many instances of christian rulers being false to their faith.
quote:It tends to appeal to two groups of people:
All that said, however, I find his approach unsettling simply because it does respond to something in me, which I fear could appeal to many.
quote:I will say very simply that if humans had followed Nietzchean philosophy when we were living in caves we'd have been wiped out. Humans are a social animal, and one thing being a social animal allows us to do is to specialise - which means that we can afford areas of weakness that are covered by others.
The challenge to atheists is to say whether they also believe that these things follow from the nature of reality, in which case the philosophy of Nietzsche can be viewed as wrong, and even be discriminated against, as indeed overt racism is.
quote:Morality based on reciprocity and adding to this civilisation we are a part of.
Originally posted by anteater:
Of course morality can exist without christianity, as it plainly did before. That is not the issue. The question is: What sort of morality?
quote:On the contrary they are necessarily nasty - which isn't the same thing as either good or evil. Because their means are nasty. And you might as well say "Those who advocate The Inquisition and auto-da-fe are not necessarily nasty people. They are merely more concerned with someone's fate in the next life than this and may be acting in the best interests of those they force to recant or burn."
Those who advocate eugenic programs are by no necessity nasty people. They simply have a different view of what is the best for the optimal happiness of the human race, and in their view, elimination of weaker strains is a positive move.
quote:Reciprocity. "You must be the change you would see in the world." Thinking of yourself as a human being and a part of humanity rather than as an isolated individual - I didn't make the clothes I wear, I didn't invent the language I use or the computers I type on. In fact I'm responsible for very few of the things that give me a nice life - but can pay some of them forward.
And apart from a view of humanity that goes beyond the purely physical, I cannot see any argument that could resist this idea. Maybe you can.
quote:Not really. Europe is at its longest period of peace in history. And homicide rates appear to be plummeting. About the only death rate that has increased (other than from old age) is due to industrialisation and when you already have scum in charge they can do things more efficiently.
Has nobody noticed that with the decline of religion in the West, which really got going in the 17th century, the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes has got bigger and bigger.
quote:And yet the God of the bible has a long track record of wiping out those weaker than he is, of punishing his chosen people by sending them into exile, of toying with those weaker than he is - whether mind controlling Pharaoh in order to give himself an excuse to show off or torturing Job and treating his family as colateral damage.
Originally posted by anteater:
So my thesis is that if christianity is true, then it means the God, who has made public the fact that he is on the side of the dispossessed will triumph. Which means any actions designed to oppress and enslave the weak will be be met with His judgement.
quote:See above. It is not irrational to trample on the weak if you think you can get away with it. But it is bad for you and your species to allow others to trample on the weak even if you are not one of those being trampled on. And it is therefore good to make sure others can't - humanity rose to the top by listening to the weak and using us to cover for each others' weaknesses rather than eating the weak.
Is there anything deriveable from a totally materialistic view of reality that makes such actions irrational?
quote:What happens when Christians get temporal power is no worse than when secular humanists get temporal power. (We'll put aside the distracting analogy with communism. The French Revolution was based on the values espoused by secular humanists. It was not all peace and light.)
Originally posted by Justinian:
In short Nietzche is beloved of Christian apologists because he allows them to keep their theoretical abstractions and not have to pay attention to the real world and what actually happens whenever Christians get temporal power?
quote:And which of Nietzsche's works is this paragraph based upon?
He is also beloved of Christian apologists because his philosophy is very distinctively Christian in origin. Christian apologists tend to say "Without God this would happen". Nietzche says "There is no God therefore what the Christian apologists said would happen will happen." Which puts him squarely in the Christian philosophical tradition in the same way that a Black Mass is squarely within Christian traditions.
quote:Anything has historically been a tool of the powerful. Anti-religion, as in Hitchens, was just as useful in justifying the War in Iraq as anything Christian. In fact, among otherwise intelligent people, probably more so.
Christianity can easily be and historically has been a tool of the powerful.
quote:If only it were that easy.
we see reciprocity in nature, in game theory, and that the Golden Rule crops up in almost all known non-aberrant moral systems.
quote:You appear not to know that Nietzsche is a major influence on most left-wing French postmodernism.
(Nietzsche) tends to appeal to two groups of people:
quote:You do realise that's Nietzsche's critique of nihilism and Dover Beach style atheism? Nietzsche's whole project is to rescue the wonder and fascination of life from the slanders of Christianity.
when you take away the imaginary alternative for being imaginary but still consider this world to be worthless rather than beautiful, fascinating, and wonderful you end up roughly where Nietzche did.
quote:Not really. The fact it has gained little acceptance has no bearing on how well it is "aligned to reality".
Prosperity Gospel is a bit of a red herring, as it has never gained acceptance in mainstream christianity.
quote:Pretty much what Justinian said, really, but then again sort of not. While I believe all he says is true, I don't favour compassion over Nietzschean values for those reasons, nor yet does my view of life lead me to the conclusion that the weak and vulnerable should be a priority. If I said it did I would be lying, or at least mistaking a post hoc rationalization for my real motivation. I wouldn't be alone in that, mind.
It'd still be nice for you to have a try, or at least state whether your own view of life leads you to the conclusion that the weak and vulnerable should be a high priority and what basis, if any, you have for campaigning for this view.
quote:
All beings tremble before violence.
All fear death.
All love life.
See yourself in others.
Then whom can you hurt?
What harm can you do?
He who seeks happiness
By hurting those who seek happiness
Will never find happiness.
For your brother is like you.
He wants to be happy.
quote:Who here has argued that morality came from religion? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think anyone has.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
This recent book is pertinent to the discussion.
The Bonobo and the Atheist
In it Frans de Waal argues that human morality comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Not religion. Instead of just arguing about it, he actually uses evidence from recent primate studies to back up his arguments.
I agree with Justinian that our species clearly would not be as successful as it is without a degree of empathy and compassion.
Those who argue that materialists HAVE to be in favor of a dog eat dog morality,or somehow are not real materialists are mistaken.
Just observing nature we have learned that evolutionary survival strategies include cooperation, empathy and compassion.
Also I find it strange that common human traits like compassion and empathy seem to be exclusive of Christianity for some people.
And somehow would never have appeared otherwise.
I guess that the claim is that the only good in the world comes from active intervention of "god" and it can't be explained otherwise.
As an example of non-christian empathy a quote I like from the Dhammapada
quote:Basically the same question was asked before by you in this thread and was answered by Crœsos.
Originally posted by Squibs:
Who here has argued that morality came from religion? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think anyone has.
quote:So I was just commenting on that previous exchange. My main point is in support of the idea that there are rational non-christian grounds for compassion.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Always glad to oblige. The point wasn't that non-Christians couldn't be moral, but rather than non-Christians would never be interested in helping "the weak", however defined. It seemed to genuinely perplex our thread opener:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I may have missed it. Can you point out where it was claimed that non-Christians can not be moral? What exactly is the connection between your post and the post you are responding to?
quote:The underlying premise here is that absent Christianity, no one would feel compassion for "the vulnerable".
Originally posted by anteater:
What I'm getting at is that Christianity teaches, whether you believe it or not, that support for the vulnerable is an unqualified good. Nietzsche sees it as an unqualified bad.
Do you see no danger that the erosion of Christianity could lead to an erosion of compassion for the weak? Who. Else will champion them, and on what basis?
quote:It read like a request to join.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
I reckon you choose Christianity because what you see as the core message strikes a chord with you, not because you really believe it aligns to reality, because, come on, all the stuff that's not about loving your neighbour is just a crock of shite.
And if all this sounds irrational and contradictory, it is. But hey ho, rationalist philosophizing - fun that it is - is a crock of shite too.
quote:This is trivially true though. Religion comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Language comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Aggression comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Ambition comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Cruelty comes from our evolutionary ancestors.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
In it Frans de Waal argues that human morality comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Not religion.
quote:I do not believe A.C.Grayling is about to shave off his hair, don a saffron robe, and become a monk.
As an example of non-christian empathy a quote I like from the Dhammapada
quote:is not what Jesus taught. "If you give to those from whom you hope to receive, what good is that" (paraphrase). Christ's morality was based on giving with no expectation of reciprocity.
Morality based on reciprocity
quote:Well the first part is true, although it's not just that alignment to ethics. I think it gives a better account of why the world is and why human experience, including religious experience is that way it is. Better, though not conclusive, and I have never suggested that the case against is unworthy of respect.
I reckon you choose Christianity because what you see as the core message strikes a chord with you, not because you really believe it aligns to reality
quote:Unfortunately you do appear to think that case against is unworthy of respect.
on, all the stuff that's not about loving your neighbour is just a crock of shite.
quote:Since you already admitted that Religion comes from our ancestors what makes the norms derived from religion any more rational? And my point was that empathy is a product of evolution because of its survival value. So when human cultures create our moral codes, it is not surprising that compassion and empathy make an appearance. What specific form those moral codes take of course depends on the culture.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So nothing follows that makes it rational to choose morality over aggression in cases where they conflict. [snip]
And while nothing about language requires us to think one language is better than another, morality is essentially normative.
quote:What were the metaphysics of that Dhammapada quote? For me its a good description of the motivation given by empathy. Of course Buddhism has a lot of metaphysical baggage. But the
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Whether Platonism and Buddhism justify non-aggression or empathy is neither here nor there for those who reject the metaphysics or anthropology of Platonism or Buddhism.
quote:Values derived from Christianity or Buddhism stand a chance of being more rational in so far as they stand a chance of being true.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Since you already admitted that Religion comes from our ancestors what makes the norms derived from religion any more rational? And my point was that empathy is a product of evolution because of its survival value. So when human cultures create our moral codes, it is not surprising that compassion and empathy make an appearance. What specific form those moral codes take of course depends on the culture.
quote:Shorn of the Buddhist metaphysical anthropology, is there any reason to suppose that:
What were the metaphysics of that Dhammapada quote? For me its a good description of the motivation given by empathy. Of course Buddhism has a lot of metaphysical baggage. But the point was against presenting Christianity as the only proponent of empathy, and the only alternative to nihilism.
quote:is anything other than a pious thought of the sort sewn on samplers in cross-stitch?
He who seeks happiness
By hurting those who seek happiness
Will never find happiness
quote:you potentially offend all the other 5 billion people on the planet with the implication that not only can they not be compassionate without god, but it has to be the Christian flavour.
Do you see no danger that the erosion of Christianity could lead to an erosion of compassion for the weak? Who. Else will champion them, and on what basis?
quote:I'm aware of that. But it looks to me like you have both missed the point. For arguments sake I'll propose the following:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Basically the same question was asked before by you in this thread and was answered by Crœsos.
quote:There we agree.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Values derived from Christianity or Buddhism stand a chance of being more rational in so far as they stand a chance of being true.
quote:Maybe that is why there is nothing like that in the Bible? For example
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Limits on empathy, eg hatred of outsiders and people who are different, are also products of human evolution because of their survival value. Survival value provides no reason to exalt compassion and reject xenophobia as elements of a moral system.
quote:You conveniently left out the next verse:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Shorn of the Buddhist metaphysical anthropology, is there any reason to suppose that:
quote:is anything other than a pious thought of the sort sewn on samplers in cross-stitch?
He who seeks happiness
By hurting those who seek happiness
Will never find happiness
quote:The reason is empathy. How can you be happy hurting other people if you have empathy?
For your brother is like you. He wants to be happy.
quote:Why? As our knowledge has increased the notion of Humans as totally other and separate from
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also, 'all beings' does not mean 'all human beings' - the quote is radically anti-humanist.
quote:Is the greater good of Humanity totally separate from the good of other “beings”. In which way does Humanity benefit from the suffering and extinction of other beings?
American Humanist
“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”
quote:Ill have to concede that point to some extent. But it is a matter of what is emphasized in the texts. Practices such as Metta if actually taken
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As an aside, the quote as a whole is expressive of a tendency in Buddhism to cast the practical expression of empathy as abstaining from harm, where Christianity is more likely to cast it, for better or worse, as actively aiding others.
quote:The record of Christianity is poor. But not as bad as often painted.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:Maybe that is why there is nothing like that in the Bible? For example Matthew 10:5-15 ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Limits on empathy, eg hatred of outsiders and people who are different, are also products of human evolution because of their survival value. Survival value provides no reason to exalt compassion and reject xenophobia as elements of a moral system.
Christianity has not been among the most tolerant religions.
quote:Ah, there's my problem. You see I thought the passage was an exhortation to empathy, rather than a warning of the dangers of empathy.
quote:You conveniently left out the next verse:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Shorn of the Buddhist metaphysical anthropology, is there any reason to suppose that:
quote:is anything other than a pious thought of the sort sewn on samplers in cross-stitch?
He who seeks happiness
By hurting those who seek happiness
Will never find happiness
quote:The reason is empathy. How can you be happy hurting other people if you have empathy?
For your brother is like you. He wants to be happy.
quote:Are there many members of the American Humanist Association who walk around with brooms so they don't accidentally step on an ant? No? Probably there's a difference between Humanism and Buddhism then.
quote:Why? As our knowledge has increased the notion of Humans as totally other and separate from the other “beings” makes less and less sense.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also, 'all beings' does not mean 'all human beings' - the quote is radically anti-humanist.
If Humanism is according to the American Humanist Association. “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”
Is the greater good of Humanity totally separate from the good of other “beings”. In which way does Humanity benefit from the suffering and extinction of other beings?
quote:If I were to say that practices such as the Daily Office if actually taken seriously will produce people who don't engage in resentment, would you let that one pass?
quote:Ill have to concede that point to some extent. But it is a matter of what is emphasized in the texts. Practices such as Metta if actually taken seriously will produce people who act on their compassion.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As an aside, the quote as a whole is expressive of a tendency in Buddhism to cast the practical expression of empathy as abstaining from harm, where Christianity is more likely to cast it, for better or worse, as actively aiding others.
quote:Thanks for the link, that one is ok. I believe this one is a bit better. I hope it works now.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ikkyu
That Metta link doesn't work for me. This does. Does it say what you wanted to say?
quote:I was trying to say that a moral system is not based on only one argument. The fact that empathy has survival value is only a starting point.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Limits on empathy, eg hatred of outsiders and people who are different, are also products of human evolution because of their survival value. Survival value provides no reason to exalt compassion and reject xenophobia as elements of a moral system.
quote:There also are no Buddhists who do that unless they convert to Jainism first.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Are there many members of the American Humanist Association who walk around with brooms so they don't accidentally step on an ant? No? Probably there's a difference between Humanism and Buddhism then.
quote:Was your point that all Humanists are not Buddhists? I think that is trivially true.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Buddhists are, I believe, enjoined not to engage in practices like farming animals. Does the American Humanist Association enjoin its members to desist from even factory farming?
quote:That is not the only argument in favor of that idea just one possible argument that happens to be true, the suffering and extinction of animals is bad for humans. Also having empathy for animals for other than selfish reasons is anti humanist because?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Asking whether humanity benefits from the suffering and extinction of other beings is still treating the welfare of other beings as a means to the benefit of humanity.
quote:You seem to define humanists as somehow only been able to care about humans and any humanist argument trying to justify caring about anything else as non-rational and incompatible with humanism. This is a straw man argument.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The problem with humanism as an ideology is that it's big on affirming woolly platitudes about reason and the greater good of humanity, and poor on attempts to use reason to find out what the greater good of humanity is. In so far as it has an intellectual justification, it is based upon the value of some aspect of humanity. (There are radical utilitarians who can call themselves humanists; but that has its own problems.) No doubt most humanists give lip service to environmental concerns, but not in a kind of way that can function in public reason.
quote:I have known and know many practicing Christians.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If I were to say that practices such as the Daily Office if actually taken seriously will produce people who don't engage in resentment, would you let that one pass?
quote:Firstly, it's fine to say that the argument you gave is only one argument, or only one component of the argument. But if it's the only component of the argument that you've presented then it's a bit unfair to object when someone criticises it as a standalone argument.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I was trying to say that a moral system is not based on only one argument. The fact that empathy has survival value is only a starting point.
I was just establishing the fact that some components of our moral code have origins in our Biology. Not that that is PROOF that empathy is rational.
But my example was that just as there being a biological explanation for Xenofobia does not mean you have to include it in your moral code,
the fact that there are passages in the bible in favour of Slavery or intolerance does not mean that they need to be included in the moral code of all Christians. You have to put those in context just as you put Xenophobic tendencies in out biology in context.
So if Christians are allowed to add nuance and context to their arguments naturalist accounts of morality deserve the same chance.
quote:I stand corrected.
quote:There also are no Buddhists who do that unless they convert to Jainism first.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Are there many members of the American Humanist Association who walk around with brooms so they don't accidentally step on an ant? No? Probably there's a difference between Humanism and Buddhism then.
quote:My point is that humanists who are not Buddhists can't merely cherry pick bits of Buddhism out of context in order to make up for their inability to justify their moral positions from their own resources.
quote:Was your point that all Humanists are not Buddhists? I think that is trivially true.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Buddhists are, I believe, enjoined not to engage in practices like farming animals. Does the American Humanist Association enjoin its members to desist from even factory farming?
About Buddhism being "radically anti-humanist."
I just not see that as a convincing argument.
And I am sure there are plenty of Humanists against factory farming.
quote:As I said earlier, it's not really fair to object that it's not the only argument when it is the only argument that you've presented.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:That is not the only argument in favor of that idea just one possible argument that happens to be true, the suffering and extinction of animals is bad for humans. Also having empathy for animals for other than selfish reasons is anti humanist because?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Asking whether humanity benefits from the suffering and extinction of other beings is still treating the welfare of other beings as a means to the benefit of humanity.
quote:It would be a straw man argument if that was what I was arguing.
Originally posted by Ikkyu: You seem to define humanists as somehow only been able to care about humans and any humanist argument trying to justify caring about anything else as non-rational and incompatible with humanism. This is a straw man argument.
quote:Now if someone cares about something that isn't the greater good of humanity, they're not doing it because they aspire to the greater good of humanity. Yes? Aspiring to the greater good of humanity only gives you reason to care about something if it is a means to the greater good of humanity. If you care about something that isn't a means to the greater good of humanity, it is for some other reason or no reason at all.
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
quote:Up the thread you said Christianity is not the most tolerant of religions. Now, I could have replied that Christians who properly practice prayer aren't intolerant. But you would quite rightly object that was a no-true Christian argument. Saying that Buddhists who properly practice meditation are compassionate in practice is much the same sort of argument.
So what is so strange about thinking that people who properly practice Metta might actually benefit from it? Or decide to put compassion in practice?
quote:Unfortunately I have not presented my arguments in a very coherent fashion so far.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
They ought to observe that the Bible contains a number of programmatic statements about how to summarise it or statements of general principles and so on. And that means that in case of conflict you ought to go with the interpretations that best fit with the general principles.
So if faced with a dilemma over loving their neighbour or persecuting them they ought to notice that the general statements favour the loving option.
No such general principles of interpretation are available from biology.
quote:Because it damages the environment and contributes to global warming? Because its cruel? You would need to persuade him not tell him that he can't.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Let me put it another way: is there any reason at all why a humanist can't support factory farming?
quote:From a Buddhist perspective the greater good of humanity cannot be separated at all from the good of our environment. Does humanity even exist separately from the air we breathe the food we eat and the history of life that precedes us? What does it mean to be human without air? If your definition of the grater good of humanity is narrower than this I believe it is deficient.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If someone cares about animal welfare for reasons other than that they aspire to the greater good of humanity, then it's not because they're a humanist. It's for other reasons. And those reasons might well come into conflict
with their aspiration to the greater good of humanity.
Is that clearer?
quote:I'd suggest that it's a horror of homicide which naturally extends to a horror of killing other life to the extent that it resembles human life.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
is there any reason at all why a humanist can't support factory farming?
quote:I could quibble with the example and point out that one of the biggest PR problems the French Revolution had was that the people being executed by them mostly were literate, connected, and many were capable of writing. Unlike the peasantry that had been killed before. But that's only a minor quibble. From what I can tell any group that thinks it has The Answer is going to be a bad thing in power - humans are more complex than one human mind can embrace. (And fear any regime that says that humans aren't good enough - see the New Soviet Man or Homo Economicus). So point basically accepted.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What happens when Christians get temporal power is no worse than when secular humanists get temporal power. (We'll put aside the distracting analogy with communism. The French Revolution was based on the values espoused by secular humanists. It was not all peace and light.)
quote:Most intelligent people I knew at the time weren't buying what Hitchens was selling back then. But some tools are easier to turn to the use of the powerful - Monotheism being the belief that there is one central most important figure of the universe is a particularly easy one.
Anything has historically been a tool of the powerful. Anti-religion, as in Hitchens, was just as useful in justifying the War in Iraq as anything Christian. In fact, among otherwise intelligent people, probably more so.
quote:I'd have said that you know them by their fruits - but there is possibly circular reasoning in there.
'non-aberrant moral systems': presumably what makes a moral system aberrant is that the Golden Rule doesn't crop up in it.
quote:You are confusing the map with the territory. Game Theory is a tool that can be used to investigate the real world and for which you need to attempt to take account of unquantifiables - if you fail to do so then the map doesn't match the territory. In which case what's wrong is the map.
Game theory requires that everything can be expressed in terms of quantified payoffs. As I said in response to Croesos, if you think you can express human goods in terms of quantified payoffs you're basically buying into neo-liberalism. Stressing mutuality and so on just means you're buying into the Clinton/ New Labour version of neo-liberalism: it's still neo-liberalism at bottom. And we've seen that left-wing houses built on neo-liberal sands fall down.
quote:The problem is that human nature is a complicated thing - and that the human brain is not large enough to model the interactions involving itself - it's not a step larger than itself. Any consistent ethic large enough to take the whole range of human behaviour and motivation into account is too large to understand. Any consistent ethic that is comprehensible is too small to cover the range of humanity and most are an attempt to fit humanity on a Procrustean bed. Like so many things the best you can do is take approximations while being aware they are approximations.
The fundamental problem with stressing reciprocity and so on in human nature is that human nature is a complicated thing.
quote:Given that my experiences of left-wing French postmodernism (including teaching my dyslexic and highly non-academic little sister to read Barthes to the point that her tutor said she understood him better than he himself did by the simple expedient of showing her how to translate each deliberately obfuscated sentence into something clear) have lead me to the conclusion that French post-modernism is a movement based round trying to obscure that the Emperor is merely wearing boxer shorts. It had a few good points to make initially as a reaction against the excesses of the modernism even the name 'post-modernism' shows it to be reacting to. (Most notably the taking account of different viewpoints being essential). But, like many revolutionaries (including topically Thatcher) the bits that needed breaking were the easy part. That they look to Nietzche for inspiration doesn't surprise me.
quote:You appear not to know that Nietzsche is a major influence on most left-wing French postmodernism.
(Nietzsche) tends to appeal to two groups of people:
quote:Indeed. By modern standards Lincoln was a flaming racist despite being a visionary for his day. Nietzche saw the trap and struggled to extracate himself but didn't entirely succeed.
You do realise that's Nietzsche's critique of nihilism and Dover Beach style atheism? Nietzsche's whole project is to rescue the wonder and fascination of life from the slanders of Christianity.
quote:Oh, we can ask. No one is saying we can't ask. We then get answers.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Asking whether humanity benefits from the suffering and extinction of other beings is still treating the welfare of other beings as a means to the benefit of humanity. (Why the capital H?)
quote:Reminds me a lot of the Sermon on the Mount that way. Are you really saying you want something like the Levitical laws as your basis for morality?
The problem with humanism as an ideology is that it's big on affirming woolly platitudes about reason and the greater good of humanity, and poor on attempts to use reason to find out what the greater good of humanity is.
quote:In so far as religious morality has an intellectual justification, it is based upon the value of some aspect of God. Therefore no morality has an underlying intellectual justification of the sort you want. Why are you singling out Humanism?
In so far as it has an intellectual justification, it is based upon the value of some aspect of humanity.
quote:And what does that have to do with anything? You asked what sort of morality you can have without Christianity. I gave an answer - which you are now using as an out of context proof text (I think to avoid engaging with the fact I demolished your entire case). That it is not the same as morality backed by the threat of hellfire and the potential of heaven (as most Christian morality historically has been) is irrelevant. It is a direct answer to your question.
Originally posted by anteater:
Justinian:
quote:is not what Jesus taught. "If you give to those from whom you hope to receive, what good is that" (paraphrase). Christ's morality was based on giving with no expectation of reciprocity.
Morality based on reciprocity
Now you may say he is wrong, but I'm not so sure.
quote:Lincoln did not exist.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Indeed. By modern standards Lincoln was a flaming racist despite being a visionary for his day.
quote:Nine times out of ten, when a Christian apologist starts going on about subjective morality and absolute morality, they're talking rubbish. The words 'subjective' and 'absolute' are great generators of confusion - nine times out of ten the person using them doesn't know what they're trying to say.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Of course any attempt to do a secular morality has to face the fact that you have to start from some assumptions that are subjective.
A test for a good secular morality has to be that it fits reality and it helps in attaining its intended goals.
And it always has to remain a work in progress subjected to constant revision form experience.
I do not believe that this subjective part of any secular morality is a problem that it does not share with its religious counterparts. Arriving at those "general principles" from the bible is a subjective enterprise.
If not, everyone would agree on what they are.
So for me the claim that the absence of Christianity means nihilism unless naturalists can produce absolute morality out of thin air, makes no sense. Because the "absolute morality" of Christianity is subjective.
quote:I was using 'can't' in a 'persuade he oughtn't' kind of way.
quote:Because it damages the environment and contributes to global warming? Because its cruel? You would need to persuade him not tell him that he can't.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Let me put it another way: is there any reason at all why a humanist can't support factory farming?
quote:Firstly, I don't think the Buddhist perspective is relevant to humanists who aren't Buddhists, unless it persuades them to become Buddhists. Secondly, at least one Buddhist on these boards (I can't remember who) recently said that Buddhists think all goods are illusory - the greater good of humanity presumably being included in that.
quote:From a Buddhist perspective the greater good of humanity cannot be separated at all from the good of our environment.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If someone cares about animal welfare for reasons other than that they aspire to the greater good of humanity, then it's not because they're a humanist.
quote:The majority of humanists probably support the right to abort fetus, even at late stages of pregnancy. They could dismiss the argument that the late stage fetus resembles independent human life as sentimental - wittering on about its sweet fingers and toes to paraphrase one humanist.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:I'd suggest that it's a horror of homicide which naturally extends to a horror of killing other life to the extent that it resembles human life.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
is there any reason at all why a humanist can't support factory farming?
Almost everyone would be sorry or angry to see a chimpanzee killed or cruelly treated, but hardly anyone would give a second thought to swatting a fly. Cattle would be somewhere in the middle. So, naturally again, would a human fetus, by the way: we should expect to consider killing it increasingly repellent the older it is, without necessarily calling it murder.
quote:I'm sorry: I really don't know whether what you mean by 'categorical imperative' is the same as what everyone else means.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Both are therefore inherently bad things for humanity. Which isn't the same as saying that they are categorical imperatives not to do.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Asking whether humanity benefits from the suffering and extinction of other beings is still treating the welfare of other beings as a means to the benefit of humanity.
quote:At least, with the Sermon on the Mount you can rule some things out altogether. (Retaliation for wrongs done to oneself is pretty hard to square away.)
quote:Reminds me a lot of the Sermon on the Mount that way. Are you really saying you want something like the Levitical laws as your basis for morality?
The problem with humanism as an ideology is that it's big on affirming woolly platitudes about reason and the greater good of humanity, and poor on attempts to use reason to find out what the greater good of humanity is.
quote:In so far as religious morality has an intellectual justification, it is based upon the value of some aspect of God. Therefore no morality has an underlying intellectual justification of the sort you want. Why are you singling out Humanism? [/QB][/QUOTE]
In so far as it has an intellectual justification, it is based upon the value of some aspect of humanity.
quote:Nice, thanks.
Originally posted by Squibs:
Lincoln did not exist.
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Nine times out of ten, when a Christian apologist starts going on about subjective morality and absolute morality, they're talking rubbish. The words 'subjective' and 'absolute' are great generators of confusion - nine times out of ten the person using them doesn't know what they're trying to say.
quote:Yes. Golden rule vs raw selfishness. And before you say that's such an edge case, I'm going to point out that this is no different from Christianity where through biblical exegesis and finding reasons to support what they were already doing a lot of Christians and a lot of Christian thought came down pro-slavery.
Or to put it another way, can a humanist construct a roughly coherent moral structure in such a way that he or she would be able to address moral dilemmas without rationalising what he or she would have done anyway?
quote:Because humanists don't fall back on The Bible and God Says. They merely fall back on "My understanding is..." You might not be able to challenge a humanist successfully but there is no reason in principle why you can't. There is no humanist equivalent to "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Or to Leviticus 20:9-16 (for some reason people only ever cite Leviticus 20:13).
One of the humanist arguments against religion in public life is that arguments appealing to private revelation cannot be challenged by people who disagree. But how can humanists avoid the charge that their moral arguments are similarly based in private conviction and cannot be challenged?
quote:Thing you must take into account first, overriding all other constraints.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm sorry: I really don't know whether what you mean by 'categorical imperative' is the same as what everyone else means.
quote:Auto-da-fe (both punishment and penance) on the other hand actually works under Christian morality. This is admittedly because the concept of Hell is addinga huge flaw to the whole of Christian morality.
At least, with the Sermon on the Mount you can rule some things out altogether. (Retaliation for wrongs done to oneself is pretty hard to square away.)
There are some things that just cannot count as loving your neighbour. Dropping napalm on them can't. Does 'aspiring to the general good of humanity' mean enough that anything can't count as that? Napalming villagers might be taken as justified by the greater good.
quote:There is - and as long as you make your axioms clear and say they are just as far as you have reached they can be argued with.
(Is a future in which a small population of humans living blissfully in harmony with the environment a greater good than one in which many humans live on a planet just barely able to sustain them? There is in fact a coherent argument that the second is better.(*))
quote:God confers value because God's value is off the scale. And as for not having aspects, that depends in part on your understanding of the Trinity, and in part on your understanding of aspects.
The concept of God doesn't work like that. (God doesn't have value; God confers value. For that matter, God doesn't have aspects.)
quote:You're making a leap of logic there. Loving your neighbour is only the second commandment in Christianity - and there are plenty of ways people think they can show their love for God without loving their neighbour (see building ridiculously extravagant churches) or love their neighbour in ways that are harmful to them because it will save their neighbour from hell.
You can't say x is doing that because he loves God rather than because x loves his neighbour. Loving your neighbour is what loving God amounts to in practice.
quote:The first way round it is margin-of-error. If we have as many humans as the planet is able to sustain at a given time we have nothing when something goes wrong. The second is how do we assess the greater good. He's obviously decided to do it additively rather than multiplicitavely or for those already there. The third is that he's obviously defining happiness as goodness - which as your only axis leads to drugging the water supply.
Argument by Derek Parfitt, who really didn't like the conclusion but couldn't see a way around it. (The answer I think is abandon the concept of the greater good as incoherent.)
quote:If a moral system is open to challenge and relies on persuasion, and will actually change when its shown to be ineffective, for example when confronted with facts about nature, it sounds very good to me. What I mean by subjective is that you have to start from a point of view, and you can't use science and logic to prove once and for all and to all people that your assumptions are correct. Those assumptions have to feel right to you and hopefully to many people. But you can't never forget that that is what they are and as such may be subject to change. About Biblical interpretation, the fact that you can argue does not mean that you will ever stop arguing. Each person will bring their own point of view or that of their sect and that means to me that the conclusions that they reach that way are subjective.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is that the case for any reasonable moral system? Not really. A moral system has be able to persuade people who don't agree with it, and also has to be open to challenge.
I don't think 'subjective' is the right word for what you're trying to say about secular morality. I don't think it's the right word for what you're trying to say about Biblical interpretation either. Because someone can argue about Biblical interpretation.
quote:As Justinian said, Christians rationalize that way all the time. Its a very human thing to do. Even we Buddhists do that too.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Or to put it another way, can a humanist construct a roughly coherent moral structure in such a way that he or she would be able to address moral dilemmas without rationalizing what he or she would have done anyway?
quote:That applies to the people killed in the Terror in Paris, many of whom had been part of the Revolution before they got caught up in the violence. Most of the violence occurred outside Paris to people in the provinces, often before the Terror proper.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I could quibble with the example and point out that one of the biggest PR problems the French Revolution had was that the people being executed by them mostly were literate, connected, and many were capable of writing.
quote:For a broad sense of monotheism, broad enough to include systems where the theism is merely analogical, I might agree. Call such systems monologic. So that it is structured round a single source of value, such as the people, or reason, or humanity or so on. Of course, the same features make such systems available for the use of the powerless as well.
But some tools are easier to turn to the use of the powerful - Monotheism being the belief that there is one central most important figure of the universe is a particularly easy one.
quote:Doesn't that amount to what I was saying: game theory is a map that doesn't match the territory? It's not just that game theory cannot take account of things that aren't quantifiable under the rules of the game; it's that it quantifies them anyway.
You are confusing the map with the territory. Game Theory is a tool that can be used to investigate the real world and for which you need to attempt to take account of unquantifiables - if you fail to do so then the map doesn't match the territory. In which case what's wrong is the map.
quote:I feel that the choice is being presented as too stark, in such a way as to justify a set of approximations that are far too loose. To be useful a set of ethical guidelines must be sufficiently coherent that you can launch a critique from them without incurring the charge of special pleading.
If it's a choice between a coherent ethical system that doesn't match up to humans and a set of useful ethical guidelines that do I'll take the guidelines every time.
quote:I agree with this.
Originally posted by Truman White:
Isn't that most things in the universe? How much does 'science and logic... prove once and for all' anyway? Notwithstanding all those issues that are outside the remit of science, science itself only gives us a current view based on existing knowledge. Even in areas that are properly the preserve of the scientific method, the degree of disagreement between scientists is evidence enough of its inability to prove very much 'once and for all'.
quote:Its at least as relevant as the Christian perspective. I think humanists enjoy being well informed.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Firstly, I don't think the Buddhist perspective is relevant to humanists who aren't Buddhists,unless it persuades them to become Buddhists.
quote:I don't presume to speak for all Buddhists as I am sure you don't claim to speak for all Christians, that being said, as far as I can tell without reading what that other Buddhist said, the notion of all "goods" being illusory is based on the idea of non-attachment to views.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Secondly, at least one Buddhist on these boards
(I can't remember who) recently said that Buddhists think all goods are illusory -
the greater good of humanity presumably being included in that.
quote:I enjoy being well-informed too. But I couldn't lift a quote from the Dhammapada and claim it for Christianity unless I could show that it fitted into Christian tradition.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:Its at least as relevant as the Christian perspective. I think humanists enjoy being well informed.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Firstly, I don't think the Buddhist perspective is relevant to humanists who aren't Buddhists,unless it persuades them to become Buddhists.
quote:You're missing the point. The Ancien Regime was based on violence to keep the serfs down. I'm questioning whether the Revolution was more violent or was simply violent against the people who bought ink by the barrel.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
]That applies to the people killed in the Terror in Paris, many of whom had been part of the Revolution before they got caught up in the violence. Most of the violence occurred outside Paris to people in the provinces, often before the Terror proper.
quote:No map, in order to be comprehensible, is able to both fully match the territory and be comprehensible by a human mind. You seem to think that admitting something is a map is a flaw. Me, I think any "Coherent system of ethics" is inherently hubristic as humans are simply not capable of understanding all the interactions they can have due to not being more complex than their own minds.
Doesn't that amount to what I was saying: game theory is a map that doesn't match the territory? It's not just that game theory cannot take account of things that aren't quantifiable under the rules of the game; it's that it quantifies them anyway.
quote:The trouble here is that you're jumping in at the SMBC Porpoise costume critique level of the Golden Rule. The sort created from semantic games that miss the point rather than trying to grasp the whole intent.
I feel that the choice is being presented as too stark, in such a way as to justify a set of approximations that are far too loose. To be useful a set of ethical guidelines must be sufficiently coherent that you can launch a critique from them without incurring the charge of special pleading.
quote:I'm not much of a philosopher, but in either case, my answer would be the same. First, could not one just as easily dismiss an aversion to homicide itself as sentimentality? Second, whether we call it sentimentality or not, it strikes me as sound psychology to suppose that cultivating an aversion to killing animals or beings reminiscent of humanity will prevent actual homicides. I can't cite any studies to that effect offhand, other than to recall how dramatically the simple step of superimposing an image of a man over the bull's eye for target practice reduced the inhibitions of soldiers against shooting actual enemies in battle.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
They could dismiss the argument that the late stage fetus resembles independent human life as sentimental - wittering on about its sweet fingers and toes to paraphrase one humanist.
However, if they then dismiss the argument against late abortion on the grounds that it's sentimental do you then have any grounds for a comeback when someone defends factory farming by saying that your objections to that are sentimental?
quote:When I quoted the Dhammapada my point was that claiming that the choice is only between Christian values and Nihilism ignores many alternative viewpoints. And I am not claiming the Dhammapada for humanists since I am a Buddhist and I cited the source. But I would not mind if an argument from Buddhism helped a humanist live better.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I enjoy being well-informed too. But I couldn't lift a quote from the Dhammapada and claim it for Christianity unless I could show that it fitted into Christian tradition.
Being informed about Christianity is one thing; saying in one breath that one doesn't need religious values to be good and then quoting the sermon on the mount in the next would be another.
quote:I love this. Don't confuse the map for the territory, don't confuse the finger pointing at the Moon for the Moon.
Originally posted by Justinian:
No map, in order to be comprehensible, is able to both fully match the territory
and be comprehensible by a human mind. You seem to think that admitting something
is a map is a flaw. Me, I think any "Coherent system of ethics" is inherently hubristic
as humans are simply not capable of understanding all the interactions they can have due
to not being more complex than their own minds.
quote:This approach makes perfect sense to me. I would add that taking a critical look at the maps
Originally posted by Justinian:
Do the best you can using maps you know to be imperfect and interpolating with what
you know to be best estimates while accepting and accounting for the fact it is flawed.
quote:I think that not matching the territory is a flaw. You can be abstract from the territory, but if you start marking terrain as smooth going when it's an impassable bog you're beginning to be less than useful.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:No map, in order to be comprehensible, is able to both fully match the territory and be comprehensible by a human mind. You seem to think that admitting something is a map is a flaw.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Doesn't that amount to what I was saying: game theory is a map that doesn't match the territory? It's not just that game theory cannot take account of things that aren't quantifiable under the rules of the game; it's that it quantifies them anyway.
quote:Complete is not the same as coherent.
Me, I think any "Coherent system of ethics" is inherently hubristic as humans are simply not capable of understanding all the interactions they can have due to not being more complex than their own minds.
quote:We can go along with that. The difference between us is you think you're going for option one, while I think you're going for an amalgam of two and three.
You basically have three choices.
- Do the best you can using maps you know to be imperfect and interpolating with what you know to be best estimates while accepting and accounting for the fact it is flawed.
- Con yourself that you really do have a coherent ethical system that is both simple enough to understand and apply and comprehensive enough to be generally applicable.
- Throw the baby out with the bathwater.
quote:In the case of human nature, the map is part of the territory.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Don't confuse the map for the territory, don't confuse the finger pointing at the Moon for the Moon.
quote:Are those parents really using game theory to decide? In my view the change was from a system based on empathy to a system based on Capitalism.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What had happened is that by introducing the fine the nursery had changed the nature of the transaction. Instead of asking parents to show consideration for the staff, the nursery had turned the relationship into one governed by game theory.
quote:This actually gives Justinian more ammunition.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Justifying morality using game theory changes the nature of the morality that you're trying to justify.
quote:Can I just mount a complaint first that once again you are having to dig into texts of over 2,000+ years antiquity to quote a principle that no mainstream christian would take as present guidance.
Because humanists don't fall back on The Bible and God Says. They merely fall back on "My understanding is..." You might not be able to challenge a humanist successfully but there is no reason in principle why you can't. There is no humanist equivalent to "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Or to Leviticus 20:9-16 (for some reason people only ever cite Leviticus 20:13).