GeorgeW Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Expcet for that inconvient problem that torture doesn't work and there's no scientific evidence that torture produces reliable information, so torture wouldn't bring happiness to the greatest amount of people since it doesn't even work at all. This is the utilitarian argument. Torture is [a] morally justified if it works, however it doesn't work, therefore [c] it is not justified. Of course, there are those such as Cheney who agree with [a] that it is (morally justified) and disagree with that it doesn't work. The moral discussion is then limited to the efficacy of torture. However, some, including me, think that torture is immoral even if it did work. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Even if it was proven that torture worked, torture at best would only produce short term results but in the long term, torturing terrorist suspects would only hurt our relationships with the middle East further and anger terrorists more so in the long run it still wouldn't make the greatest amount of people happy and would just piss a lot of Muslims off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Even if it was proven that torture worked, torture at best would only produce short term results but in the long term, torturing terrorist suspects would only hurt our relationships with the middle East further and anger terrorists more so in the long run it still wouldn't make the greatest amount of people happy and would just piss a lot of Muslims off. Again, strictly a utilitarian argument. If it works, it is fine. But, it doesn't, so lets not do it. We could advance the same arguments about slavery and host of other issues. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Again, I ask, if you believe we can't have human rights without religion yet you object to the bible's endorsement of slavery which again it never condemned, by what standard are you deteremining which religious morals you accept as human rights and which ones you reject? The bible is not the issue. We're talking about a genealogy of ideas. It doesn't even have to do with me. Even if I were a nihlist who disagreed with the premises, I'd still have to acknowledge the historical beliefs from which "rights" were derived. The concrete, historical details. Not some universal "standard" of religion. From a mere historical perspective, we did not arrive at the notion of human rights without particular religio-metaphysical considerations. It has nothing to do with whether I believe in them or how I weigh them against my own beliefs. Even though it is ingrained into us Westerners today, the concept of "rights" is not a given. It is a conditioned belief. You cannot simply assume they exist. Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 But I suppose, in answering the question -- even though I don't use the bible as such to articulate theories about morality. I derive my ideas about morality and the inherent dignity and worth of human beings from my own religio-metaphysical considerations. The standard by which I judge things is within the context of my metaphysical worldview. I also tend to think that morality exists for us as a category in its own right -- 'right' and 'wrong' are meaningful wholes in the way we relate to our existence. The problem is whether other philosophical committments undermine the expression of the moral dimension to our being. Our values are dynamic and not disembodied from place and time, but grow from the fertile soil of actuality. Our values form part of our very awareness. I don't see any independent standard, but I also don't see chaos or all out relativism. Also, by reaching for meaning, by talking about my values in terms metaphysical realities, I am doing what religion has done. Religion is also dynamic. The idea that our values are purely secular and objective without religio-metaphysical content, I think, is a stretch. In other words, there is no way to be metaphysically neutral about values. Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Again, strictly a utilitarian argument. If it works, it is fine. But, it doesn't, so lets not do it. We could advance the same arguments about slavery and host of other issues. George Isn't that what progressive Chrisians do with the bible? Progressive Christians don't believe the miracle stories in the bible are literally true but they still think religion is useful and works in promoting social justice. So if religion works, it's fine even if it's not literally true, but if religion doesn't work, it's not fine. Progressive Christianity is essentially a utilitarian argument for religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Except for that inconvient problem that torture doesn't work and there's no scientific evidence that torture produces reliable information, so torture wouldn't bring happiness to the greatest amount of people since it doesn't even work at all. That is not exactly how it worked out. Who would stop the president - or anyone else? and by what authority? We are back at the weakness of Ingersoll's suggestion our moral guide should be intelligence. So do we need an aristocracy (rule by the best)? Who would choose? Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 I admire Clarence Darrow because he fought for a liberal cause. His argument in court in several cases was "I know that the defendants did bad things (kill, bomb, etc) but the system is so corrupt you have to find them not guilty. Since it worked it must have been smart. Is this approach justified under consequentialism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Is progressive religion justified simply because it works even if it's not literally true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I think the pragmatic, results-oriented side of anything is good. But at base, it is intrinsically incomplete. Our ontology must enter into the picture -- our view on reality, especially with regards to our worldview. I think truth is still important to progressive Christians in general. That is why the bible's "literal truth" is contrasted with its "metaphorical" and/or "spiritual" truth. To whatever degree Christianity may be seen as myth pointing to the Sacred, the Sacred itself is not myth. At least, not for me, and for many others I wager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Paul, The Peasants Revolt When the Kentish rebels arrived at Blackheath on 12 June, the renegade Lollard priest, John Ball, preached a sermon including the famous question that has echoed down the centuries: "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" The following day, the rebels, encouraged by the sermon, crossed London Bridge into the heart of the city. He gained considerable fame by expounding the doctrines of John Wycliffe, and especially by his insistence on social equality. Wikipedia is not comprehensive so I wait to be informed. I think religion is sometimes at the service of a movement. In this case and in others there was an appeal to authority for human rights and social equality. That was one of the keys to the Protestant Reformation. We are all equal before God. The Delaration of Independence makes this same appeal to authority, the Creator. And there were many sermons in the Americas in support of the Revolution. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 From the library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html Religion as Cause of the Revolution Joseph Galloway (1731-1803), a former speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly and close friend of Benjamin Franklin, opposed the Revolution and fled to England in 1778. Like many Tories he believed, as he asserted in this pamphlet, that the Revolution was, to a considerable extent, a religious quarrel, caused by Presbyterians and Congregationalists whose "principles of religion and polity [were] equally averse to those of the established Church and Government." Religion played a major role in the American Revolution by offering a moral sanction for opposition to the British--an assurance to the average American that revolution was justified in the sight of God. -- ministers did the work of secular radicalism and did it better." The Revolution split some denominations, notably the Church of England, whose ministers were bound by oath to support the King, and the Quakers, who were traditionally pacifists. The Revolution strengthened millennialist strains in American theology. --- This attitude combined with a groundswell of secular optimism about the future of America to create the buoyant mood of the new nation that became so evident after Jefferson assumed the presidency in 1801. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 From the library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/e...gion/rel03.html Religion as Cause of the Revolution Joseph Galloway (1731-1803), a former speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly and close friend of Benjamin Franklin, opposed the Revolution and fled to England in 1778. Like many Tories he believed, as he asserted in this pamphlet, that the Revolution was, to a considerable extent, a religious quarrel, caused by Presbyterians and Congregationalists whose "principles of religion and polity [were] equally averse to those of the established Church and Government." Religion played a major role in the American Revolution by offering a moral sanction for opposition to the British--an assurance to the average American that revolution was justified in the sight of God. -- ministers did the work of secular radicalism and did it better." The Revolution split some denominations, notably the Church of England, whose ministers were bound by oath to support the King, and the Quakers, who were traditionally pacifists. The Revolution strengthened millennialist strains in American theology. --- This attitude combined with a groundswell of secular optimism about the future of America to create the buoyant mood of the new nation that became so evident after Jefferson assumed the presidency in 1801. Yes, but was this the 'cause' of revolution or was it a tool of trade adopted to help the revolution succeed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Yes, but was this the 'cause' of revolution or was it a tool of trade adopted to help the revolution succeed? Is there a way to separate the two so neatly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Paul, All men are created equal before God was a concept significant in the Reformation If one hears this phrase for 2-3 centuries the understanding will come from deep in one's bones so to speak. It evolves until there is no alternative. The issue is what is the source for this concept. From the anti-christianJefferson was part of the Virginia planter elite and, as a tobacco planter, owned hundreds of slaves throughout his lifetime. Like many of his contemporaries, he viewed Africans as being racially inferior. From the ChristiansThat impulse sprang from two main sources: the theology and practice of Quakerism and the emergence of an aggressive, interdenominational evangelicalism. Both movements arose in England and America during the Age of Enlightenment—the eighteenth century. The pietism of the Quakers, a radically egalitarian Protestant sect, asserted the love of God for every human being, regardless of color, sex, or station in life. Even before the American Revolution, the most famous of the mid- and late eighteenth-century Quaker reformers, John Woolman, Anthony Benezet, Benjamin Lay, and later Benjamin Lundy began to publish their opinions and raise the issue of human bondage at Quaker meetings, largely in Pennsylvania. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Is there a way to separate the two so neatly? In this day and age, I think not. If we had the benefit of being able to question those involved, perhaps so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I think religion is sometimes at the service of a movement. In this case and in others there was an appeal to authority for human rights and social equality. That was one of the keys to the Protestant Reformation. We are all equal before God. The Delaration of Independence makes this same appeal to authority, the Creator. And there were many sermons in the Americas in support of the Revolution. Dutch And Martin Luther called for the destruction of the Jewish religion and John Calvin burned heretics at the stake all in the name of God, which was as much of the Protestant Reformation as the Peasant Revolt was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Progressive Christians don't believe the miracle stories in the bible are literally true but they still think religion is useful and works in promoting social justice. So if religion works, it's fine even if it's not literally true, but if religion doesn't work, it's not fine. Progressive Christianity is essentially a utilitarian argument for religion. Really, can you cite PC writers who have made this argument? I don't recall anyone in this thread or forum, for that matter, making the utilitarian argument for Progressive Christianity. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Progressive Christianity is essentially a utilitarian argument for religion. I have said is religion is a way to hold the truths. What's important is not what was written on the pages then, which is also true of science, but the way the stories are told now. Since there is a spectrum of believers - those that work from a sense of fear and want to close the gate and those that work from a "let's open the gate" position - I hestitate to speak for all Christians at all times. In the public arena there is also a spectrum of ideas from both religious and secular souces that make sense to the speaker. For me that might be the problem with an ulitlitarian form of consequentialism. It is based on "It makes to me." That then leaves correction by whom? In the US isn't the Constitution written to protect those rights outlined in the Declaration? Rights said to be given by a Divine Creator? Then we have an example of the partnership or the tension between religious and secular, do we not? Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Do all conqeuentialists come to the same scientific conclusion about the rich getting richer problem in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 But, it makes for an interesting and lively discussion. George It does at that, George! When you say that religion is a cultural universal, perhaps you haven't heard of the Pirahã tribe in the Amazon? I haven't read the book titled "Don't sleep, there are snakes" but it's about a missionary who travelled to witness to this tribe, only to become an atheist after seeing how contented these people were without any belief in religion, Gods or other deities, pagan, naturalist, supernaturalist or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 When you say that religion is a cultural universal, perhaps you haven't heard of the Pirahã tribe in the Amazon? I haven't read the book titled "Don't sleep, there are snakes" but it's about a missionary who travelled to witness to this tribe, only to become an atheist after seeing how contented these people were without any belief in religion, Gods or other deities, pagan, naturalist, supernaturalist or otherwise. I am vaguely familiar with this particular tribe, but primarily though linguistics. They have been cited -- and rebutted -- to have a language that violates what is considered a language universal (recursion) along with some other unique features. This has been hotly debated although I haven't read anything lately. So, I am not sure where the argument stands now. When anthropologists talk about cultural universals, they don't mean every single individual or every single society that has ever existed. But, a cultural universal (like the nuclear family, the incest taboo, etc.) is a highly common and predominate cultural feature. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 It does at that, George! When you say that religion is a cultural universal, perhaps you haven't heard of the Pirahã tribe in the Amazon? I haven't read the book titled "Don't sleep, there are snakes" but it's about a missionary who travelled to witness to this tribe, only to become an atheist after seeing how contented these people were without any belief in religion, Gods or other deities, pagan, naturalist, supernaturalist or otherwise. Aren't some sects of Buddhism also atheistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Really, can you cite PC writers who have made this argument? I don't recall anyone in this thread or forum, for that matter, making the utilitarian argument for Progressive Christianity. George Karen Armstrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Karen Armstrong? I don't recall her making this argument, but I have only read, I think, one of her books and it was quite some time ago. Maybe you could find a quote from her and post it here. I really don't think most PCs posit a utilitarian argument for Christianity. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.