View Single Post
Old 11-08-2006, 03:29 PM   #5
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Axgar
seperating our religion from the way we conduct ourselves it treading on dangerous ground IMO EC.
I didn't say anything about seperating religion from how we conduct ourselves. I said that the two systems work on different justifications. Religion decidse what is "right" based ona relationship/decree of a deity. Morals decide what is "right" by a logical and consistant analysis of alternatives/intent/consequences (depending on the paradigm you adopt).

Most people use moral systems AND religious systems, I would be willing to bet. For example... On those issues of slavery... typically we reject the idea of slavery. Religiously, it seems that it might be considered jsutified, as God himself outlined rules for slavery... but you still reject it on moral grounds. Thsoe moral grounds could be based on a value of fairness... utility, self interest (egoism), justice, or a variety of other moral values playing in your moral framework. If you don't have any moral or religious problem with slavery.. then you still reject it becasue it is illegal... and the legal system is a seperate normative system to decide what is "okay".

So you can see... it's not that I am saying you should seperate your actions from your religion, it is that religion and morality ARE two seperate issues, that most people ignorantly lump together. Religion does not offer a "moral" benefit... it offers a "righteous" benefit. This is why it is so absurd when religious figures claim they have any kind of moral authority, or that non-religious,secular, or other religions have no/less moral intergrity. It makes no sense. In fact, the opposite is true. I would imagine, that when the two come into conflict, a religious person is MORE likely to do the religiously correct thing rather than a morally correct thing. That is, they would be more likely to do something for the reason that "because God says so" regardless of the logical and quantifiable consequences.

I am a pragmatic egoist. I consider things as they practically apply to me. That is why on the issue of gay rights, I am pro-rights. Why? I beleive a system that disallows rights to adult citizens when allowing those rights offers no quantifiable harm to society is morally wrong. I believe it is nothing more than the majority bullying a minority. I don't like that, because I know that if I ever find myself in a minority with an unpopular belief/idea that doesn't hurt anyone, I can be sanctioned simply because it is unpopular... and even worse for arbitrary reasons. It also takes away my right to marry a woman. Sure I don't want to, but I see no reason why I shouldn't have the right if I wanted to. Like dancing around in my living room in my underwear... sure I don't do that or really want to... but I would be mad if someone tried passing a law saying I couldn't do it... it doesn't hurt anyone! I think that would be undesireable and therefor morally wrong to do to someone else.

The whole "Do unto others as you would have done unto you"... that's sort of a good example of a simple moral code... and I wouldn't want to be persecuted/sanctioned/degraded/harassed/berated/ or made fun of, simply because I was in an unpopular minority... one that really doesn't hurt anything.- that's also where Rheaton and I disagree on gays, usually. I don't have a problem with his religious objections... I have a problem with the WAY he objects (rudely), and with his lame attempts at claiming it causes harm, which always end up in a insane mess.
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani

Last edited by Everclear; 11-08-2006 at 03:45 PM.
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote