This came up in another thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214780471/11#11

I believe there is a need for a secular belief system which offers a moral code to live by, which is not based simply on hedonism and freedom to pursue hedonism. This is the very freedom from which those who feel spiritually impoverished are looking to escape and it is this which makes most religious sects an attractive alternative to secularism by those who feel spiritually impoverished. It does not need to be exclusive of other belief systems and could maintain as one of its tenets (as does Buddhism) an inclusiveness of other beliefs, thereby eliminating the need to compete. If would be based on development of character and aspiration towards developing ideal humanistic character traits as opposed to the favoured by a deity.

---

I think it goes deeper than just a moral code. Absolute moral codes can lead to all sorts of injustices if they are applied universally. (Ever see the old Black and White Film "Kismet" with Marlene Dietrich? ). All kinds of people are talking about spiritual enrichment these days - and not just religions.

I think that the 'non-religious' (and probably a fair number of the 'religious by default') are mostly missing out on this spiritual dimension in their lives, although what I define as spiritual is related to the emotions and spiritual 'nutrition' of the human mind.  We all need the 'wow' factor in life, the meaning in life,  otherwise we become empty shells.

---

So what would such a moral code cover? What have people come up with previously?

It's a little hard to do, since the basis of secularism seems to be that there is no underlying morality, it's just what we decide it is at the time in our parliaments.

Seems you want the best of both worlds here freediver, and I don't blame you, the absolutism of religion can sometimes be scarey, especially if you don't have a conviction in any one belief system, but I don't believe secularism can ever provide such a moral code, because secularism itself is a reaction to religion. If religion is an absolute morality, then secularism must be a transient morality.

So I think secularism can never have a "moral code" because codification becomes absolute, and that would be contrary to the ideals of secularism, that morality shifts and changes with the times.

Perhaps you really seek belief in something, but are afraid to embrace it, for fear you might not like the absolute nature of it. :)

Secular people are very moral.

"Belonging to a religion" is easy. Follow the rules.
Seculists make their own moral code, often a very good one and often adhere to it very well.

I have nothing to fear from seculists.
They would be happy to let me live within their midst.
Well, they do !!!!!!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2008 at 11:51pm:

Secular people are very moral. "Belonging to a religion" is easy. Follow the rules. Seculists make their own moral code, often a very good one and often adhere to it very well. I have nothing to fear from seculists. They would be happy to let me live within their midst. Well, they do !!!!!!

you are one..

secularists have a tendency of attacking and trying to discredit anyone who doesn't think secularism is the best method.. they fanatically do it..

malik - absolutely.

And I have quite a few quotes from the Bible to show anyone should be secular.

A possible secularist tenet:

Morality is manifest when character is in balance.

It is a perceived spiritual imbalance that drives the quest for personal redemption from the angst born of a precarious existence.

No one can be saved from himself, save by himself. And in order for that to be realised (to overcome yourself), you must freely accept the tenets by which you perceive will result in your self-redemption. This need not emanate from the mercy of a deity (although it is none the less for that attribute) but it demands commitment to a codified morality to which you will be true.,,

Such as Conviction - the art of being certain. Courage - the art of being strong and Compassion - born of self-respect, because all respect is self-respect.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2008 at 11:51pm:

"Belonging to a religion" is easy. Follow the rules.

I think this is wrong.  Belonging to a religion is choosing to follow thier rules.

In fact, I would say that the essence of faith is the belief that following a certain set of rules is the "right" thing to do.

Therefore the test of faith is the absence of a stirct requirement to follow the rules.  Those who know they don't need to follow the rules have faith, those who do not have exercised thier right not to have faith.

I am against any morale code.  If an act is not strictly limited by law, then the act is not illegal.  People may choose not to do the act because they find it immoral, but it is not illegal, and should not be.

Bill

If you are easily offended, don't read this, but basically we are all human beings.

None of us have a real God. The problem is that many of us don't realise this fact.

Disclosure Statement: That's not ramming anything down your throat. I'm just stating the view from my own personal window on the cosmos. If you honestly feel offended by that view or think it threatens your belief system, then maybe you need to re-examine  your personal faith or the robustness of your own views and work out for yourself who you're trying to kid.

If you want to use the fear of retribution by a supreme being as the basis for a stable morality system , so be it. I have no argument with you.

My morality is one that I take responsibility for. It's an internal locus of control. It's my morality, and I own it. It's not the morality of a 2000 year old religion that doesn't even anticipate some of the moral dilemmas that we face today, such as the fact that we live in a multicultural society where people have no common belief system, and we need to respect each other and work together (at least from my moral standpoint).

Absolute morality is what got two gay teenagers executed in Saudi Arabia a few years ago. Absolute morality got a UK school teacher locked up in prison and nearly executed because her class wanted to name their teddy bear mascot 'Mohammed'. Absolute morality has led to the deaths of millions of people from STI's because their religion forbids them from using condoms. Absolute morality led to delays in the universal implementation of the HPV vaccine in the US, and potentially led to unnecessary deaths of thousands of women to cancer - all because some US president thought it would lead to teenagers having sex ? (somebody should tell him what actually happens)  

So absolute morality doesn't have some kind of high moral ground. It just facilitates brainless automaton type decisions without the human or humane element. Take the humanity out of morality and you're left with what? ....God?  a smoke and mirrors version of morality?

Don't look behind that curtain!

muso,


Quote:

My morality is one that I take responsibility for. It's an interal locaus of control. It's my morality, and I own it.

It's also a morality that you can switch and change according to your own whims and desires. If something doesn't suit you, you can easily modify it to suit you. In essence your morality is subservient to your own desires. It serves you, and nobody else. If all human beings had the same basis for morality, we'd be living in a pretty dark and horrid world I think. You might be a sensible person (perhaps you are, I don't know), but that doesn't mean everyone is. There are dark and twisted people out there, whose idea of morality is quite distant from yours. So if you advocate each person formulating his/her own morality, then do you accept that dark twisted person's morality as being just as valid as your own? Really, you'd have to wouldn't you? Because the only basis for the validity of your own individual morality, is that it's yours, and likewise the dark and twisted person's morality is theirs..


Quote:

Absolute morality is what got two gay teenagers executed in Saudi Arabia a few years ago.

If you truly believed in the concept of individual morality, then you'd accept that other societies have their own (yes collective) morality, which differs from yours. And you'd give them the same respect for their different take on morality that you obviously expect for yours. In their society, homosexuality is considered an abhorrent crime and it has it's punishment. Likewise, according to your own personal morality, there's probably things which you consider abhorrent and should be punished harshly, that those other people think are just normal.

Also just to let you know, not everything is as it seems in the oil-rich Kingdom of the Arabian Peninsula. More often than not, these public beheadings and such are just a front for something else. They often involve people who have had a bad dealing with the large ruling family there (which consists of hundreds of princes) and they are scapegoated as homosexuals or adulterers and the like. In most cases they probably did nothing wrong whatsoever, except disobey someone linked to a royal. Sorry to disappoint you, I'm sure you love the idea that there might be homosexuals there, and there probably is, but I doubt they'd be publically executed like that, they're most likely quite well protected by the royal family.


Quote:

Absolute morality got a UK school teacher locked up in prison and nearly executed because her class wanted to name their teddy bear mascot 'Mohammed'.

The class wanted to? Or she wanted to? Either way it's irrelevant, the Sudanese government is not based on Islamic law, and neither has been any Muslim land, since the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate over 80 years ago. They are all colonial outposts of the West which were specifically created in the Sykes-Picot agreement and other such conferences, and have all had non-Islamic ideologies and laws implemented in them. Just because they wear flowing white robes and turbans and speak Arabic means nothing


Quote:

So absolute morality doesn't have some kind of high moral ground. It just facilitates brainless automaton type decisions without the human or humane element.

It's a standardisation. It's a constant. It's a clear set of boundaries we all know is unchanging and therefore we can rely on and have the piece of mind knowing won't change according to people's whims and desires. Evolving morality is very dangerous, and has in fact led to far more severe outcomes than the ones you mentioned above. Let us look at the greatest massacres in recorded human history. The reigns of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, all these people believed in a morality that is free of the Creator, and which was formulated according to the situation of the times. All of them rejected established religion, and attempted to formulate their own morality based on their own whims and desires, and look what it resulted in, the deaths of many many millions of people.

Your own personal morality might work for you, and that's great, I'm glad for you, but when you try to implement it upon an entire nation, it ends up disastrous. Islam has a 1350 year record of implementing the absolute morality as commanded by the Creator. It was fair and just and humanity prospered greatly under it. In the short period of time since the decline of the Islamic Caliphate, the world has been plunged into absolute chaos. There has been constant massacres, wars, famines etc. all over the world. This is the result of the kind of morality that you call for, the sad part is, you'd never recognise it, until it was too late.

muso wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 8:04am:

My morality is one that I take responsibility for. It's an internal locus of control. It's my morality, and I own it. It's not the morality of a 2000 year old religion that doesn't even anticipate some of the moral dilemmas that we face today, such as the fact that we live in a multicultural society where people have no common belief system, and we need to respect each other and work together (at least from my moral standpoint).

Read up on the multicultural nature of the Roman Empire during the early years of Christianity. The religion had to deal with very similar moral dilemmas, some arising from a multitude of competing religions, moral codes and regional cultural traditions.

Ironic to your statement is the fact that Caesar Constantine imposed Christianity throughout the Roman Empire with the ultimate goal of unifying the realm under one moral code and belief system.

Your statement “My morality is one that I take responsibility for. It's an internal locus of control. It's my morality, and I own it.” suggests you have a moral code. What is it? Does it answer the question “How should I live” to your satisfaction?

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 8:52am:

In essence your morality is subservient to your own desires. It serves you, and nobody else. If all human beings had the same basis for morality, we'd be living in a pretty dark and horrid world I think. You might be a sensible person (perhaps you are, I don't know), but that doesn't mean everyone is. There are dark and twisted people out there, whose idea of morality is quite distant from yours.

That's why we've got a legal system. The things that can actually harm somebody need to be part of a legal system that adapts to changes in societal norms through the ages, because religions don't have that mechanism to adapt.

The minor differences in morality, such as what happens in people's bedrooms have no place in law. Religions should have no right to condemn people who choose to follow another path, or those people who decide to change their path in life. People should be totally free to make their own decisions on what they believe regardless of what their parents believe.

By the way societal norms do change. If you don't accept that, you're being hypocritical. I don't want to bring up this historical pedophilia discussion again, but it illustrates my point.

You may have noticed that I stayed right out of that particular debate, because I consider it distasteful and disrespectful to Muslims. I don't go around talking about the holy spirit raping an underage girl (Mary) for the same reason - because it's disrespectful to Christians.

Sometimes it's good to get these things out in the open, but I regard everybody as having rights and views that are just as legitimate as my own. As long as people don't try to force their beliefs and the morality of their religions down my throat, I'm quite happy.  The fact of the matter is that we live in a country with many different beliefs and many different religion-based morality systems, though not as different as some may have us believe.

The problem arises when one group or another want to impose their own morality on general society, and I've seen more examples of Christians trying to do that than Muslims. The Rev Fred Nile is a case in point, but to me it's laughable when a Muslim cleric says almost the same thing as Fred Nile and gets denounced and shouted down by the media and society at large.  We've got 'a ways to go'. 

Sorry, it's too late to turn the clock back to the 'steak and eggs' white Australian world of the 1950's. We need to come to terms with the fact that we're quite a mixture. We need to learn about each other and have respect for each other. That is paramount if we are to move forward and flourish as a society.

There is room for all facets of Australian culture in the future. There are certain common bonds that mark us as distinctly Australian, but we've gone past the days of Skippy and Sonny, or the cultural cringe days of Norman Gunston. For the most part, we're comfortable with our cosmopolitan nature. We're have an increasingly complex and culturally rich society, and one that I'm immensely proud of.

- and I enjoy my visits to the big smoke too, because we don't have such cultural diversity out here in the bush.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 9:11am:

Your statement “My morality is one that I take responsibility for. It's an internal locus of control. It's my morality, and I own it.” suggests you have a moral code. What is it? Does it answer the question “How should I live” to your satisfaction?

I'm comfortable with the way I live. I live according to my conscience, but I would never impose my own way of life on others.  I wear my own clothes because they fit me. I wouldn't ask anyone to wear my system of morality just as I wouldn't ask someone else to wear my underwear.

The way that I choose to live personally would probably make the most conservative Muslim cleric look like a hippy. I am a self-control freak, extremely conservative and in most people's eyes, I go overboard on such things as health, exercise and the environment. (I have 15 separate personal spreadsheets. I know exactly how much calcium for example I consumed this week.) You think I'm pedantic on here? You ain't seen nothing yet.

I guess my main tenet is one of minimising harm to myself, the environment and others with whom I interact. I strongly believe in individual freedom. Most people who know me would find that incongruous, because I use my own personal freedom to live a very conservative lifestyle. For example, I don't drink alcohol, I am totally monogamous and heterosexual, I don't eat meat and I have a very rigorous regime of personal exercise.    


wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 9:11am:

[ Your own personal morality might work for you, and that's great, I'm glad for you, but when you try to implement it upon an entire nation, it ends up disastrous.

You're missing the point. I don't seek to impose my personal morality on an entire nation. That's what some religious people do.

What is imposed on the whole nation is a legal system that should include major issues that actually cause harm.  That's good and it's subject to changes as society changes.

There is an argument in defence of the law being in essence a moral code prohibiting universally immoral acts such as murder, rape, assault, theft, fraud, among many other things.

But what about a virtue such as, for example, respect? Should we not live by a code which requires that we show respect (as opposed to contempt) towards our fellow citizens and ourselves (presuming that we have no reason to believe the person is contemptible for having broken or continuing to break the law)?

muso wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 9:54am:

I guess my main tenet is one of minimising harm to myself, the environment and others with whom I interact. I strongly believe in individual freedom. Most people who know me would find that incongruous, because I use my own personal freedom to live a very conservative lifestyle. For example, I don't drink alcohol, I am totally monogamous and heterosexual, I don't eat meat and I have a very rigorous regime of personal exercise.

I would consider that to be part of your moral code under the label of self-respect, would you agree? And judging by your post, you are strictly observant in your adherence. Whether it is too rigorous for others is another issue. What's interesting to me is that I believe you would be strong on the issue of respect (all respect is also a form of  self-respect) and I believe any worthy (secular or not) moral code must include a prohibition on disrespect including by that, self-disrespect.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 10:06am:

muso wrote on Jul 3rd, 2008 at 9:54am: I guess my main tenet is one of minimising harm to myself, the environment and others with whom I interact. I strongly believe in individual freedom. Most people who know me would find that incongruous, because I use my own personal freedom to live a very conservative lifestyle. For example, I don't drink alcohol, I am totally monogamous and heterosexual, I don't eat meat and I have a very rigorous regime of personal exercise.     I would consider that to be part of your moral code under the label of self-respect, would you agree? And judging by your post, you are strictly observant in your adherence. Whether it is too rigorous for others is another issue. What's interesting to me is that I believe you would be strong on the issue of respect (all respect is also a form of  self-respect) and I believe any worthy (secular or not) moral code must include a prohibition on disrespect including by that, self-disrespect.

I agree with you. Respect of others who may have a different personal paradigm is essential.

There are some basic things that unite us all regardless of our faith or world view, and then there are personal moralities. For example, I would find it immoral if I let myself go physically, ate to excess and started watching The Simpsons on TV every night.

I would also consider it highly immoral if I got myself to the stage that I contracted a heart condition or lung cancer as a result of smoking or bad lifestyle choices, and excessively consumed public medical resources to get me back to a state of health.  

For me that becomes an intrinsic part of my personal morality, but I recognise that others may have different priorities in life, and I respect that.

muso wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 10:19am:

For me that becomes an intrinsic part of my personal morality, but I recognise that others may have different priorities in life, and I respect that.

And I imagine you would expect that others should show respect for your values by not impeding (or perhaps also not denigrating) your right to express self-respect in the acceptable way you choose to do it.

Would you agree that you would think more of someone who showed he had respect for others (and also self-respect) than someone who had nothing but contempt for him/herself and the world? (I'm not setting up any traps or trick questions, I'm just confirming by consensus that respect is essential to any moral code).

muso,


Quote:

That's why we've got a legal system.

A legal system is indeed part of the moral code, so suggesting it's something else is just plain wrong. A Legal system decides what's good and bad, and then enforces that on all of society, punishing those who disagree/disobey.

What you really mean to say is that you seek to distill out those moral subjects you don't believe the state has a right to decide upon, and move them over into the personal domain, whereby each individual formulates his/her own personal approach to them?


Quote:

The things that can actually harm somebody need to be part of a legal system that adapts to changes in societal norms through the ages

How do you define harm? There's bound to be a lot of activities that cause harm, but you can't actually perceive it directly. Perhaps it's long term harm, perhaps the harm manifests itself in indirect ways etc. When we define laws according to societal norms, we set a dangerous precedent. Because societies are often misled into accepting norms which are really quite wrong. By your definition the Nazi massacres against minorities were fine, because the societal norms in Nazi Germany permitted it to come about.


Quote:

because religions don't have that mechanism to adapt

I would have to strongly disagree here, and suggest you really haven't studied religions enough to comment on this.

Christianity for a start is a great adapter. It can mould and twist itself to compensate for almost any condition, even expunging some of it's own core tenets just to please the masses of the time.

Islam also has mechanisms for adapting, specifically the process of ijtihad.


Quote:

The minor differences in morality, such as what happens in people's bedrooms have no place in law

You've gotta be kidding? You think people can just do anything they like in their bedrooms and the society at large is completely unaffected by it? And as we can see by the Mardi Gras example, what happens in people's bedrooms rarely stays there. The fact is that many practises occur in bedrooms that do affect societies, and this will always be the case. You simply cannot seperate law and morality, they are one in the same.


Quote:

Religions should have no right to condemn people who choose to follow another path

As I am a believer in theocracy, that really doesn't mean much to me, as I believe the entire state apparatus should be controlled by the laws of the Creator. Religion shouldn't just have an input, it should be the only single deciding factor in the way a state should be run.


Quote:

People should be totally free to make their own decisions on what they believe regardless of what their parents believe

You sound like a rebellious teenager, what are you doing on a political forum?


Quote:

By the way societal norms do change. If you don't accept that, you're being hypocritical

for 1350 years of Islamic rule, societal norms did not change. The laws of the Shari'ah remained the same. That doesn't mean they couldn't expand to deal with new situations, they could, but the basis by which they dealt with those new situations was exactly the same immutable concepts that were revealed by the Creator.

The fact that societal norms change, is a case against your concept of "rolling morality". If we base our morality on something that's constantly changing, then chances are our morals are going to end up pretty corrupted.


Quote:

I don't want to bring up this historical pedophilia discussion again, but it illustrates my point

That's a completely seperate issue. Islam always regards the age of consent to be the age of maturity, regardless of time period. When the shari'ah is re-implemented again, it will be the same, it is timeless. It is only the Western nations which have changed their attitude about this.


Quote:

You may have noticed that I stayed right out of that particular debate, because I consider it distasteful and disrespectful to Muslims.

Feel free to engage in that debate if you wish, I had no problem with it whatsoever. Those who tried to twist the concept were quickly silenced. All we had was one lone lunatic who insisted on continuing to mount personal attacks against the Prophet (Pbuh) and that person will find themselves ignored, as their vitriolic attacks and slanders do not warrant a reply.


Quote:

As long as people don't try to force their beliefs and the morality of their religions down my throat, I'm quite happy

Well my intention was not to force anyhting down your throat, just to raise some issues I think you should consider i you're going to adopt such beliefs about morality


Quote:

The fact of the matter is that we live in a country with many different beliefs and many different religion-based morality systems, though not as different as some may have us believe.

Yes we do, and I am pleased you recognise it. A lot of people wish to ignore this fact, and delude themselves into thinking they still live in the "steak and eggs 50s" as you put it


Quote:

You're missing the point. I don't seek to impose my personal morality on an entire nation. That's what some religious people do.

You might not think you do, but in reality that's what has to occur. Some kind of law/morality has to be imposed upon the nation, either it's yours or it's mine, or we all get together and decide according to the social norms, or we use an absolute standard

run out of characters..

I think we need to clarify a few points here. Secularism does not mean absence of religion. It just means absence of religion from government. Just because someone supports secularism, does not mean they aren't religious. You can support a secular moral code as a bare minimum that you think people should live by in your societiy, regardless of their belief system, while at the same time adopting a higher standard for yourself. It is only a problem when the standards are 'different', with none being universally considered more moral - such as with the abortion and polygamy arguments. Secularism is not the same thing as atheism or agnosticism. It is a political belief, not a relgious one.

I am against any morale code.  If an act is not strictly limited by law, then the act is not illegal.  People may choose not to do the act because they find it immoral, but it is not illegal, and should not be.

Billy isn't that just a definition of legal vs moral?

muso:

It's not the morality of a 2000 year old religion that doesn't even anticipate some of the moral dilemmas that we face today, such as the fact that we live in a multicultural society where people have no common belief system

Uh, I think they were familiar with that issue even back then.

Religions should have no right to condemn people who choose to follow another path, or those people who decide to change their path in life.

Religions don't. God does. Religions merely inform people of the truth. All religions I know of preach that there should be no compulsion in religion. In other words, they don't do the condemning.

abu:

In essence your morality is subservient to your own desires. It serves you, and nobody else.

This misses two important points. One is enlightened self interest, and the other is that you don't necessarily need religion to care about others.

There are dark and twisted people out there, whose idea of morality is quite distant from yours. So if you advocate each person formulating his/her own morality, then do you accept that dark twisted person's morality as being just as valid as your own?

Why would they do that? There are many ways to judge different moral codes.

Evolving morality is very dangerous

What is the difference between evolving morality and abrogation?

muso:

The minor differences in morality, such as what happens in people's bedrooms have no place in law.

That's not entirely true. You can be punished for deliberately spreading an STD.

The problem arises when one group or another want to impose their own morality on general society

that's what democracy is.

helian:

Should we not live by a code which requires that we show respect (as opposed to contempt) towards our fellow citizens and ourselves (presuming that we have no reason to believe the person is contemptible for having broken or continuing to break the law)?

Not sure about that one. There are some very powerful social feedback loops at play in ur society that help top keep in running smoothly. Disrespect is one of them. If you want society to adopt virtues that aren't legally enforced, then that will inevitably involve either disrespect to people who are not virtuous, or the inevitable enshrinement of those virtues in law and the erosion of personal freedom.

abu:

And as we can see by the Mardi Gras example, what happens in people's bedrooms rarely stays there.

Are you saying people have sex on the street at mardi gras?

freediver,


Quote:

This misses two important points. One is enlightened self interest

Not everyone who formulates their own moral/legal code will be englightened, you must take this into account.


Quote:

and the other is that you don't necessarily need religion to care about others

This point is definitely valid, caring about others can exist without religion.


Quote:

What is the difference between evolving morality and abrogation?

The source. Evolving morality takes the societal norms as it's basis for formulating right and wrong. Abrogation on the other hand is from the same divine source as the original law/moral, and therefore is just as absolute as it.

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 11:06am:

The minor differences in morality, such as what happens in people's bedrooms have no place in law. That's not entirely true. You can be punished for deliberately spreading an STD.

Well yeah, I agree. That's not exactly trivial. Neither is sex with a minor. I agree that society should be protected from these things.

The 'vibe' of my remark was directed against the 'bedroom police' aspect of certain religions. If people choose to practice sodomy between consenting adults in heterosexual or homosexual relationships, then that just concerns the two people involved, regardless of their religion. Obviously when it starts to impinge on vulnerable members of society, it's a different matter.

There was an interesting article on ABC Radio National last night, maybe it was on Life Matters. I'll have to track it down, but it was from a female Muslim in Malaysia. She had a lot of relevant things to say about the way Islam has changed in Malaysia recently.

Not everyone who formulates their own moral/legal code will be englightened, you must take this into account.

This isn't about a personal moral code, but a universal one.

Evolving morality takes the societal norms as it's basis for formulating right and wrong.

It doesn't have to.

Abrogation on the other hand is from the same divine source as the original law/moral, and therefore is just as absolute as it.

Sprint gave me the impression that people could change it. Does Islam consider the law fixed until the next prophet comes?

Quote:

helian: Should we not live by a code which requires that we show respect (as opposed to contempt) towards our fellow citizens and ourselves (presuming that we have no reason to believe the person is contemptible for having broken or continuing to break the law)? Not sure about that one. There are some very powerful social feedback loops at play in ur society that help top keep in running smoothly. Disrespect is one of them. If you want society to adopt virtues that aren't legally enforced, then that will inevitably involve either disrespect to people who are not virtuous, or the inevitable enshrinement of those virtues in law and the erosion of personal freedom.

Strictly speaking respect is enshrined in law... at least in terms of respect for the law.

Respect in itself for oneself and others (external to legal matters) must be self-imposed and form part of one's aspiration towards an ideal character. It cannot be enforced legally anyway. If someone chooses self-loathing, then there's nothing that can be done. However a secular religion would need a founding ideal which exemplifies the pinnacle of the ideal of respect and its manifestation in one's character.

Perhaps this is where the Hillelian golden rule can be adopted in a "secular religion" - "That which is hateful to you, do not do to others".

Strictly speaking respect is enshrined in law... at least in terms of respect for the law.

How so? Obeying the law and respecting it are not the same thing.

muso,


Quote:

Well yeah, I agree. That's not exactly trivial. Neither is sex with a minor. I agree that society should be protected from these things

So who's to make the decision that this should be policed yet not other practises? Some people obviously believe these practises are acceptable, or they wouldn't be partaking in them. You, or someone else, has to apply their own moral/legal judgements to these issues and then legislate them and enforce them in society. In the end, it's the same result.


Quote:

There was an interesting article on ABC Radio National last night, maybe it was on Life Matters. I'll have to track it down, but it was from a female Muslim in Malaysia. She had a lot of relevant things to say about the way Islam has changed in Malaysia recently.

You should be aware that they do hand pick their guests for these shows. You can find someone in almost any society to say anything you want them to say. I obviously didn't hear the piece, so can't comment, but just keep in mind that this individual may not really have any valid knowledge about the situation there.

freediver,


Quote:

This isn't about a personal moral code, but a universal one.

Well secularism ultimately has to take the personal moral/legal code of individuals in society because it doesn't believe in a divine source.


Quote:

It doesn't have to.

Well that's what muso was advocating.


Quote:

Sprint gave me the impression that people could change it. Does Islam consider the law fixed until the next prophet comes?

In Islam the law is divine and immutable except by the Creator himself, yes in the past this has meant no abrogation until a new prophet arrives, but Muhammad (Pbuh) is the last prophet according to Islam, and the law has been completed. In the last message of Islam, the Qur'an, the system of governnance was completed and finalised, and does not require any further abrogation. This doesn't mean new laws can't be introduced, they can, as the Shari'ah contains a process called ijtihad, which makes it possible to legislate for new situations using analogical deduction and other methods to arrive at a judgement that is perfectly in line with the revealed texts.

So who's to make the decision that this should be policed yet not other practises? Some people obviously believe these practises are acceptable, or they wouldn't be partaking in them.

There is a victim in pedophilia, there is not one in consensual homosexual sex between adults. There is a clear moral boundary, not a slippery slope as you imply. The boundary has it's basis in secular morality.

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 11:52am:

Strictly speaking respect is enshrined in law... at least in terms of respect for the law. How so? Obeying the law and respecting it are not the same thing.

Only insofar as respecting is a synonym for obeying.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 10:47am:

muso wrote on Jul 3rd, 2008 at 10:19am: For me that becomes an intrinsic part of my personal morality, but I recognise that others may have different priorities in life, and I respect that. And I imagine you would expect that others should show respect for your values by not impeding (or perhaps also not denigrating) your right to express self-respect in the acceptable way you choose to do it. Would you agree that you would think more of someone who showed he had respect for others (and also self-respect) than someone who had nothing but contempt for him/herself and the world? (I'm not setting up any traps or trick questions, I'm just confirming by consensus that respect is essential to any moral code).

I don't tend to judge people because of their outlook on life.

I've met people who have nothing but contempt for themselves and the world. I regard them as a challenge. I know one such person that I speak to regularly. He's part aboriginal, yet he's very quick to judge others and he hates everyone with a vengeance. He doesn't mind a chat from time to time though. Last week he was complaining about somebody because of what he did in his private life (I won't go into details).
I said to him "Being part, Aboriginal, you must have got a lot of sh1t from people during your life".
- "Yeah - all the time"
- "So I would have thought you would be the last person to judge other people, especially since you don't know the whole story"  

He went quiet for a while. I don't know if what I said had any effect on him, but it made him think.

I just find such people interesting. I want to know what makes them tick, and if there is anything I can do or say to help heal their malaise.

I think it goes deeper than just self-respect. It's more a question of overal mental profile, and there can be a variety of underlying causes for such an outlook on life. It could be something as simple as sleep apnoea.  Sometimes you can help people become less bitter and twisted by just talking to them and maybe help untwist them.

It comes down to brain function, and a great deal hinges on individual  locus of control.

We all know people with a mainly 'external' locus of control. They are the ones who spend all their time whingeing about one thing or another. They see themselves as victims, and often end up as victims of one or more medical conditions. They don't accept any specific criticism, not even personal criticism. Their usual retort is "You talk about me doing x ? Last week, you did y..." where x and y are totally unrelated. They tend to have a black and white sense of morality too. People are either good or they're evil. It's called external locus of control because they see the controlling factors in their lives as being mainly outside their control, and in fact they are comfortable with that to the extent that they feel threatened if you suggest that there are aspects of their lives that they can have some control over.  
E-loc's are severely disadvantaged in life because they are much more likely to suffer from a wide range of medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease, cancers and other conditions.

Then we come to I-locs. It's simplistic to say that you're either one or the other, because we all fall into both roles at various times. The main thing is exactly where our locus of control falls on average.

I-locs are a bit more straightforward to deal with. They assume control for their lives and generally ignore, or where possible try to influence those aspects of their lives that are outside their control.

Why lose sleep over it if an issue is beyond your control. The answer is in a simple question - What can I do to mitigate or eliminate this issue?

So if you want to get closer to my own ideas on morality, you'll need to get into the functions of a particular body organ (actually the principal sex organ) and how we use it. We all have one, and some are bigger than others. Can I say the word hypothalamus on here? Broadly speaking the main sex organ is the brain.

A lot of our attitudes on morality come down to how we use the brain, and particular the hypothalamus and how we allocate data and program our memory.

In summary, I prefer not to judge a person because of his attitudes. I prefer to understand why he has those attitudes.

Questionf for Abu and Malik: What is Islamic law regarding pedophilia and homosexuality? Does it accept higher societal standards or tolerance? Would you support different standards to what Islam teaches you? Can something be wrong or immoral, even if the Koran does not describe it as such?

Both are considered illegal practises and are capital offenses under Islamic law.


Quote:

Would you support different standards to what Islam teaches you?

I believe in Islam, so no I don't support different standards. However, since we do not live under an Islamic government, we must live by different laws. The two should not be confused. Islam prohibits vigilantism, and we definitely do not condone attempting to clandestinely implement our law in a non-Islamic state. This is a matter that is often confused and misconstrued in the media.


Quote:

Can something be wrong or immoral, even if the Koran does not describe it as such?

The Qur'an does not detail every little thing. It is an exposition of all things, but not in minute detail. The Sunnah, collections of recorded speech and eyewitness reocrds of Muhammad's (Pbuh) actions is by far the larger source of material to be used in Islamic jurisprudence.

As I mentioned previously, in case a specific matter is not detailed in the Qur'an or Sunnah, then we have the process of ijtihad to determine it.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 12:17pm:

So who's to make the decision that this should be policed yet not other practises? Some people obviously believe these practises are acceptable, or they wouldn't be partaking in them. You, or someone else, has to apply their own moral/legal judgements to these issues and then legislate them and enforce them in society. In the end, it's the same result.

Who do you think makes that decision at the moment? Society, through the legislators, and through the democratic process, perhaps with some lobby groups. That's how it works in a democracy.

Do you think it's better to enforce a minority view on society? Would you like to see Shariah Law enforced against the will of the majority of people?  Do you think that it's fair and ethical to enforce a law on people 'for their own good' because society doesn't know what's good for it?

I can give you plenty of examples from Iranian society for example where people would like to have the freedom to pursue their lives as they wish. One example is a female downhill skiier who was prevented from participating from the sport on religious grounds. She ended up leaving the country to pursue her dream.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 1:52pm:

I believe in Islam, so no I don't support different standards. However, since we do not live under an Islamic government, we must live by different laws. The two should not be confused. Islam prohibits vigilantism, and we definitely do not condone attempting to clandestinely implement our law in a non-Islamic state. This is a matter that is often confused and misconstrued in the media.

I think you answered one of my questions. I actually knew the answer, but I think it needed to be clarified for others reading the thread.

muso wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 1:31pm:

I don't tend to judge people because of their outlook on life. .... In summary, I prefer not to judge a person because of his attitudes. I prefer to understand why he has those attitudes.

An interesting post. Maybe I should have suggested that the act of disrespect is where your judgement may lie as opposed to necessarily judging the one who commits the act.

This is a more difficult one. Is it immoral to be prejudicial? Would a secular moral code or religion necessarily prohibit prejudice?

Is it morally wrong to consider all (insert cultural group) are (insert negative attribute)?

I tend to think we attach to much significance to the degree any particular religious belief effects our general moral code.

We see aberrant behaviour from all groups and classes, irrespective of their claimed religiousness.

Our moral code is very much a learned behaviour, which has developed from interaction with immediate family, through to the broader community.

It is human nature, to want to be liked, and to want to live peacefully, within our social group.
We learn from our actions what is and is not acceptable at our parents knee, we then build on that base when we broaden our social contacts, through school, work, and recreation.
The behaviour of others is also reported back to us through media, and other sources, and we also absorb that information to help us define what is acceptable behaviour, to fit in, and be accepted as good and decent members of our society.

We can look at cannibalism as an example, in many societies cannibalism was accepted socially, so it was not considered wrong in itself, and was believed to have been initially part of the survival instinct. As tribes grew, and shaman appeared, we saw it take on a ritualistic position in many cultures, but as tribes grew into states, and agriculture flourished, the behaviour died out to the point of actually becoming a social taboo.
The flavour of humans was often reported as very nice, a lot like pork they say, so a social taboo was necessary to stop those who would kill a stranger just to get a gourmet treat.

In our modern society, there is such an ingrained revulsion towards cannibalism, that it is almost universally looked on with horror, but the survival instinct is so great that none of us really know how far we would need to be pushed to ignore this taboo.

So I think that we can pretty much accept that morality and ethics are a logical outcome of our desire for social acceptance, but also that their is a certain fluidity to the be explored in finer points, which we adopt in a societal evolution.

The taboo on cannibalism is perfectly natural and instinctive. You can get some very nasty diseases from eating other people. Cannibalism only arises as a last resort for survival or when some kind of cultural norm or belief overrides people's instincts.

This instinct is shared with many predators. Lions for example will not only avoid eating other lions. They will avoid eating other predators such as hyenas. They will kill them for various reasons, but they will not eat them. Again, there is a sound biological/adaptive explanation - disease. Herbivores do not tend to share this taboo as strongly. Cows for example will eat the bones from dead cows. They are a good source of vital minerals. Herbivores of course don't carry as many diseases as carnivores because they don't regularly eat dead animals so they are not victims to diseases that spread that way.

Whilst your point about diseases is well founded, the fact remains that most, if not all primitive cultures did practice cannibalism, and it was only the advent of large social groups that saw it's transition to a taboo.

I knew a guy who ate dead japanese soldiers on kokoda, they were starving, and sick, and they needed the protein. Some ate it, and some did not. My uncle was revolted by it, but accepted his mates' decision to do it, whereas he believed he had the strength to carry on without it, and he only just survived.
I do not believe our aversion is instinctive on a primal level, but perhaps on a social level, with many millenia of separation between us and our ancestors who certainly practised it, perhaps the social conditioning is approaching a degree of instinctiveness, but I doubt it.

I think we can safely assume that we're all agreed that cannibalism would be prohibited within a secular moral code.

What about prejudice? Would a secular moral code prohibit prejudice?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 11:20pm:

What about prejudice? Would a secular moral code prohibit prejudice?

Prejudice, or discrimination? One can have prejudices and still be non-discriminatory. For example, I may not like you, but I'll still talk to you.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 11:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 3rd, 2008 at 11:20pm: What about prejudice? Would a secular moral code prohibit prejudice? Prejudice, or discrimination? One can have prejudices and still be non-discriminatory. For example, I may not like you, but I'll still talk to you.

If your dislike is due to a prejudgement  of me, wouldn't there be something immoral with your assessment? What if your prejudgement was incorrect and you made decisions based on your prejudice that negatively and unfairly impacted on my life? Couldn't that be considered immoral?

Prejudice is a very easy one to define, it is wrong, when the characteristic you are prejudiced against is beyond the control of the other person, like sex, or skin colour.

So, to be racist or sexist, is obviously wrong, to be prejudiced against people for things they choose, while not admirable, would not be immoral.

A fat person coming up against fatism, can choose to stop stuffing their faces.
So being fatist may be insensitive, but it is not immoral.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 4:18pm:

This is a more difficult one. Is it immoral to be prejudicial? Would a secular moral code or religion necessarily prohibit prejudice? Is it morally wrong to consider all (insert cultural group) are (insert negative attribute)?

OK. We're hard wired for prejudice. We pre-judge everything based on past experience.  We survive in life because of prejudice.

I agree that discrimination is a different matter, but it's all relative.  Some discrimination is necessary for survival.

Let's give an example. You have a teenage daughter who has never dated before. She comes home all excited and tells you that she has a date that evening at 7pm.

What would be your reaction?

OK, at 7pm you hear a car screech to a halt in front of the house.  You look with alarm out the window and you see that it's painted with a number of slogans, including one prominently displayed on the side that says "Honk if you bonk".

The driver doesn't knock at the door. Instead he sounds the horn loudly. You notice with your bionic vision (all parents have it as a result of evolution) that his face is fitted with more metal work than you'll find at the local Mitre 10.

Your daughter emerges from her room smiling. "See you later, dad"

OK, get the general scenario?

Now let's talk about prejudice, and the terrible things you are thinking right now about your daughter's new boyfriend in the car outside your house.

Now you're not going to let discrimination get the better of you and say
"Wait a minute. You're not going anywhere" - are you?
(I would)

Then your daughter turns to you and says "I hate you and I never want to talk to you again!" (sounds like prejudice and discrimination all rolled into one)

My remark would be "You might hate me, but I love you and at least you're safe"

The funny thing is that the females of the species always seem to forget that phrase "I never want to talk to you again" within 300 microseconds. That's my experience, but maybe it's my male chauvinist prejudice talking.  

My opinion is that as soon as you start to put together an absolute code of morality, you're going to end up with the same problems as the major religions. In practice what happens (or what should happen) is that when a religious person sees an injustice that is about to happen as a result of absolute rules of morality, their humanity takes over and they do what is right.

The best that you can do is to stick to the laws and the democratic system that we have in this country. If society perceives an injustice, you can bet your bottom dollar that the groundswell of support will ensure that something gets done about it.

(for example the release of Ferguson just recently)

The only morality that you can successfully codify is the Golden rule, and that's basic humanity. Something similar is entrenched in Common Law. It's called the 'Duty of Care'.

Muso

So your point is that the father in your scenario has prejudged the potential boyfriend. Although he looked like he was going to seduce the daughter, it may turn out that he's a nice kid who comes from a good home and treats the daughter with complete respect. The stitched in coathanger over his face turns out to be the result of a phase he's going through to toughen his image. However, it may turn out that the potential boyfriend’s personality and circumstances are exactly as they appear.

Yes, I would say that is an act of prejudice and as such bears a degree of immorality. What your scenario illustrates is a conflict of moralities. Would it have been better for the father not to act in a prejudiced manner towards the boyfriend and risked his daughter being misused or to have erred on the side of caution and prevented her (as much as he could) from associating with said boyfriend?

I think the issue needs to be considered in terms of outcome. To what degree would the boyfriend’s life be negatively impacted by the father’s prejudice compared to the damage done to the daughter if the father turns out to be correct in his judgement? Let’s say in this case the greater risk would be to the daughter had the father not acted as he did.

What about when you see a person from an ethnic group you do not trust on the street coming towards you and you have an opportunity to avoid passing him which you take. You could argue that it’s just to be on the safe side (he might try to beat you up) and therefore, as with the scenario above, you chose the lesser of two immoralities.

At what point does it become immoral in itself to not show courage in our interactions with the world (i.e. to act from a feeling of weakness and helplessness as opposed to strength of mind and conviction)? What would be the result if every time we were confronted with an opportunity to act on prejudice we took it “just to be on the safe side”?

Should the father and/or the pedestrian in the scenarios above have been less timorous? When should courage play a part in our dealings and predictions about the world?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 8:55am:

At what point does it become immoral in itself to not show courage in our interactions with the world (i.e. to act from a feeling of weakness and helplessness as opposed to strength of mind and conviction)? What would be the result if every time we were confronted with an opportunity to act on prejudice we took it “just to be on the safe side”?

Let's take morality out of it and think in terms of Risk Assessment. We all assess risk when we cross the street, especially in the city (Mad bast@rds) . In the case of the boyfriend, I would make a personal decision based on risk. It could be that he's just going through a phase (of bonking everybody who's young and female) but it's    question of whether or not I want to take the risk. Maybe there is room for a compromise later on, but this (hypothetical) bozo didn't even do the decent thing and come to the door. All the risk alarm bells are sounding in my head and they are ringing to the tune of 'unacceptable risk'.

As far as passing the Ethnic guy in the street is concerned,  I wouldn't normally give it a second thought because I assess that I could probably take care of myself in most situations, unless there was an unruly gang of say Latvians who were swinging chains and attired in leather with metal rings through their noses.

My sister in law warned me about the Somalians when I visited Adelaide last Christmas. I usually walk everywhere. "Oh don't go down there - you'll get mugged! It's just not safe anymore"

I ignored her and returned running to the house after my excursion to the shopping centre.

"You'll never believe this - I almost got mugged"  
Wide-eyed, she looked at me with concern "I told you! Was it one of those new Somalians?"

"No - actually it was an old woman with a dog, but I could tell by the look in her eye that....."

She hit me  :o  

I think we can safely assume that we're all agreed that cannibalism would be prohibited within a secular moral code.

Not necessarily. If it was a choice between starving to death and cannibalism, I'd probably go with cannabalism. A moral code is pretty useless if it only applies to 'the good times'.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 10:50am:

I think we can safely assume that we're all agreed that cannibalism would be prohibited within a secular moral code. Not necessarily. If it was a choice between starving to death and cannibalism, I'd probably go with cannabalism. A moral code is pretty useless if it only applies to 'the good times'.

Au Contraire. Extraordinary times can invalidate civility and morality and give justifiable rise to a new one, such as the code adopted by Jews enduring the Holocaust. Their code was down to one word... Survive. Almost anything you needed to do to achieve this was acceptable. It was justified by transferring full moral responsibility, for any actions they were forced to commit, to the Germans. This is the moral pollution that Germans rightly still bear to this day. A hard question to ask a thinking German is "Are you proud to be German?". It is extremely challenging because without exception it raises in one's mind the spectre of the Holocaust. In this way we can inherit the sins of the father.

Muso

The problem with excising the moral valency from a risk assessment is that a significant dimension of value is lost.

An amoral risk assessment would allow for any instinctive feelings of fear no matter how unjustified to be worthy of inclusion. It would be OK to prejudge all Somalis, for instance, as natural born muggers, if you felt that way. You could assess the risk and determine that taking an alternate route is the best option.

By including the moral dimension you can ask the questions: Was my sister-in-law's actions morally justifiable? Is it right to presume all Somalis (or enough of them) are muggers? What effect does this prejudice have on good Somali-Australian citizens? Is it right for my sister-in-law to pass on this prejudice to others dressed as a "fact"?

That kind of prejudice is also a two edged sword. What happens to your sister-in-law's world as she progressively quarantines parts of it from her life? When and where does it end? Does her submission to fear mean that ultimately she will not leave the house?

Helian, I think that prejudice leads people to vastly overestimate the risk involved in walking past a somali. The moralistic and the risk assessment approach are not contradictory. The immoral behaviour also makes no sense from a risk management presepective.

For any real prejudice to be evidenced, it would need to take the circumstances you are in to be evaluated.
If you were out alone, and saw a group of ethnic, gang style, youths loitering, in what you perceive to be a threatening or intimidatory fashion, then avoiding them is not prejudicial, just cautious.
If you have a fear of all ethnic, youths, irrespective of the circumstances, then you would need to consider if your fears were justified, or more based on emotive reporting of cultural violence, it does exist, but it needs to have a fair perspective applied to it.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:13pm:

The immoral behaviour also makes no sense from a risk management presepective.

How does it make no sense? Is risk assessment about whether evasive action is right or wrong or is it about contributing to achieving an outcome with the least amount of loss or damage? If you determine that Somalis are a risk (for whatever reason) are you not then bound to determine a mitigation strategy, like selecting a safer route?

or is it about contributing to achieving an outcome with the least amount of loss or damage?

It is about assessing risk, the tradeoffs between competing risks, and the tradeoff between risk and reward in a rational manner. The bahaviour you described is irrational as well as immoral.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:42pm:

or is it about contributing to achieving an outcome with the least amount of loss or damage? It is about assessing risk, the tradeoffs between competing risks, and the tradeoff between risk and reward in a rational manner. The bahaviour you described is irrational as well as immoral.

So the factor that is the crux is one of rationality not morality? If you had stats that indicated superficially that the chances of being mugged in Smith St (where coincidentally many Somalis live) are 1 in 12. Would morality come into it or would this fact require a mitigation strategy?

So the factor that is the crux is one of rationality not morality?

I am saying they do not contradict each other.

If you had stats that indicated superficially that the chances of being mugged in Smith St (where coincidentally many Somalis live) are 1 in 12. Would morality come into it or would this fact require a mitigation strategy?

Hell yes. If there is a one in 12 chance of getting mugged, no morality and no rationality would make someone feel compelled to take that risk.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:26pm:

For any real prejudice to be evidenced, it would need to take the circumstances you are in to be evaluated. If you were out alone, and saw a group of ethnic, gang style, youths loitering, in what you perceive to be a threatening or intimidatory fashion, then avoiding them is not prejudicial, just cautious. If you have a fear of all ethnic, youths, irrespective of the circumstances, then you would need to consider if your fears were justified, or more based on emotive reporting of cultural violence, it does exist, but it needs to have a fair perspective applied to it.

Perspective. Easy to say for most, hard to apply for many. It's not easy to overcome reactive or instinctive fear. How does it go, an optimist is a pessimist who hasn't been disappointed enough... Or... its easy to be even-handed about Johnny until he knocks you off your bike.

I believe non-prejudice is easy when you have no evidence to the contrary. True commitment to non-prejudice is when you have the courage to be so despite past injuries.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:57pm:

So the factor that is the crux is one of rationality not morality? I am saying they do not contradict each other. If you had stats that indicated superficially that the chances of being mugged in Smith St (where coincidentally many Somalis live) are 1 in 12. Would morality come into it or would this fact require a mitigation strategy? Hell yes. If there is a one in 12 chance of getting mugged, no morality and no rationality would make someone feel compelled to take that risk.

What would be your commitment to the moral high ground in the case of the 1 in 12 risk?

So true Helian, I previously mentioned how we accepted the attitudes of many diggers towards the japanese after the war, we empathised with their terrible experiences, and did not condemn them because of that.

We did however have a great admiration for those who could rise above their past experiences and extend the hand of friendship and reconciliation.

So we can praise and encourage a more generous attitude, but we cannot condemn the ones who could not make that step.

The whole 'walk a mile in my shoes' thing, you know.

There is no moral high ground. You are not discriminating against people based on race. You are avoiding a clear and present danger. It wouldn't make any difference if the muggers were white or black.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 1:07pm:

There is no moral high ground. You are not discriminating against people based on race. You are avoiding a clear and present danger. It wouldn't make any difference if the muggers were white or black.

The question is would you be prepared to query the validity of the stats if it were a well known "Anglo-Australian" street as opposed to a well known "Somali" one?

I would query those stats no matter where they came from.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 2:07pm:

I would query those stats no matter where they came from.

The question was rhetorical, I suppose. Admitting to prejudice is like admitting to schadenfreude. We know its shameful and don't easily admit to it without heavy qualifications, except when lathered up by a mob mentality as with the Schappelle Corby fiasco.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 2:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2008 at 2:07pm: I would query those stats no matter where they came from. The question was rhetorical, I suppose. Admitting to prejudice is like admitting to schadenfreude. We know its shameful and don't easily admit to it without heavy qualifications, except when lathered up by a mob mentality as with the Schappelle Corby fiasco.

Interestingly I have heard the Police have stats on perpetrators' ethnicities by suburb (not just major crime but the many times more common petty crime like bag snatching etc) but are either pressured by local governments not to release them or they are withheld in the interests of public order. I have never read or heard a Police Commissioner making these claims but I have worked with a couple of cops who, as they say, "gave me the good oil" on some of the suburbs where I live.

Has anyone ever heard of these stats being available?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:13pm:

Helian, I think that prejudice leads people to vastly overestimate the risk involved in walking past a somali. The moralistic and the risk assessment approach are not contradictory. The immoral behaviour also makes no sense from a risk management presepective.

I agree. Incidentally, my jibe about the old lady with the dog was meant as a gentle rebuke against my Sister in Law's prejudice. I would regard it as an irrational prejudice or even an irrational fear. I find that humour sometimes works well against such things.

I think we need to strive towards making risk based decisions, based on rational concepts of risk, but we also need to retain a sense of fun.  

For example when somebody that I don't know phones me up and asks me "How are you today" in a certain well-rehearsed tone that I recognise, my prejudice kicks in. I go into 'telemarketer game' mode. It's actually a very positive prejudice.  I immediately start thinking of questions I can ask to break their script, and keep them on the line as long as possible before I finally tell them that I've kept them on the phone for (insert time) minutes and that I don't actually buy things over the phone on principle, because it encourages telemarketing.  

My best score so far is 9 minutes and 23 seconds.

Now some people might view that as unethical (or immature) because I'm deliberately deceiving somebody. (Abu Rashid - No I'm not 15. Reverse the digits and you'll be closer to the mark)

Actually I regard it as the only ethical behaviour because I regard telemarketing itself to be an abomination and a scourge on civilized society, and I feel that it's my duty to discourage them as much as possible.

I like to gently lay the phone down and come back later to see if they are still talking.

You see the problem with an absolute moral code is that it's all very well when you're in a normal day to day life situation.

Thou Shalt not kill

Thou shalt not steal

That's all very well for most situations. But let's say a depraved atheist rushed into a church (or a Mosque), gun in hand and decided to take all the congregation hostage.

We have a hostage situation that goes on for hours. The police are surrounding the church, and the terrorist is starting to get a bit on edge. He has his back turned on one of the congregation members who spots the gun in the terrorist's back pocket.

The congregation member (an ex police woman) quickly steals the gun and points it at the terrorist, who walks towards the woman, not believing  that she will actually fire the gun. Twice she warns him that she is prepared to fire the weapon, and twice he ignores her. Finally she shoots him and he crumples to the floor, dead.

Unfortunately, she has just stolen a gun, and she just killed a man, so that's it - no honours to be bestowed - just a stoning or two, preferably fatal.

Then common sense and humanity step in, and they decide that she had actually just borrowed the gun, and that the terrorist had just walked in the way of the bullet.

So the congregation decide to honour the heroine for carrying out such a brave act in the face of such personal danger.

She is presented with a bravery award and asked to make a short speech.

"I am very proud and honored tonight to accept this award both as a Muslim (or insert religion) and a Lesbian....."

Stone her!!!!!!!!!!!!   ;)

Quote:

It is about assessing risk, the tradeoffs between competing risks, and the tradeoff between risk and reward in a rational manner. The bahaviour you described is irrational as well as immoral.

... And yet we are very often driven by irrationality. We like, love, dislike and hate many things and our feelings may not be based on rationality.

We are susceptible to the irrationality of mob hysteria like at a sports venue or a festive national day or when vilifying entire nations because they won't let our crims out of jail for free or when we determine their guilt before we are sure of the facts concerning how a baby could have died in the desert, for example. We are susceptible to racial stereotyping and believe that a bunch of foreigners of ethnicity X on a sinking boat would throw their babies overboard. We believe all kinds of strange things that may have absolutely no factual or rational basis.

And most often we attempt to rationalise them all when called on to justify our actions or we attempt to bury them due to shame and embarrassment. But we will believe spurious data that purport to justify our prejudices. We hear what we want to hear and see what we believe is there to be seen, because we want to believe our prejudices are acts of “sagacious perspicacity” and not just examples of irrational fear.

And, of course, often our fears which drive us to prejudge others do have some basis in reality - at least insofar as the past is some guide to the future. Like a cabbie who will not stop if the fare is of ethnicity X. Yes it’s easy, they might say, to be upbeat about X… until you’re beat up by X.

And also maybe there is even good enough reason to justify prejudice (or perhaps in this case correct risk assessment). No one would think any less of you if you chose to avoid a notoriously dangerous street known to be frequented by violent people – that you could rightly claim is an act of risk assessment - If you claim that the majority of crims in that street are of origin X and by that imply or allow it to be believed that all X are dangerous, then that is just raw prejudice.

But whatever the impulse drives us to prejudge, the act itself, where it negatively impacts (or potentially negatively impacts) on the well being or rightful freedoms of an innocent other, then that act carries a degree of immorality.

No one would argue that strength of character is not required to overcome irrational fear and defeat our inclination towards prejudice when interacting with or thinking about an instance of the X we irrationally fear - because sometimes it is far easier to be prejudiced than tolerant. That fact, however, does not excise the immorality from prejudice nor the status of virtue from tolerance.

So far we've discussed Respect (self-respect) and Tolerance (as the antithesis of prejudice) as possible features of a secular moral code.

Of the seven deadly sins (or cardinal sins if you're Catholic) which are lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride (and some would argue that spite is an eighth), all of which it is easily arguable can carry some degree of immorality. However, I have had some problems with the notion of pride being necessarily a cardinal sin except where its intent is to refer to arrogance.

Do you risk your own virtue necessarily when you feel proud that your children have succeeded? Or when your country has acted honourably?

Compare those to acting in an arrogant manner.

Is arrogance in itself immoral?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 8:16am:

Of the seven deadly sins (or cardinal sins if you're Catholic) which are lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride (and some would argue that spite is an eighth), all of which it is easily arguable can carry some degree of immorality. However, I have had some problems with the notion of pride being necessarily a cardinal sin except where its intent is to refer to arrogance. Do you risk your own virtue necessarily when you feel proud that your children have succeeded? Or when your country has acted honourably? Compare those to acting in an arrogant manner. Is arrogance in itself immoral?

Only for other people  ;D

As a secular moral code, you're drawing on some good aspects of the Christian tradition, but to me there are some good examples in Taoist philosophy and Buddhism. (Nothing is Nothing)

As far as pride is concerned, it has its pitfalls (pride comes before a fall), and in its worse form leads to martyrdom, but I think patriotic pride or pride in one's community or religion can be very positive. If everybody in a community feels like it's doing well, it will do well. In that respect, pride is motivational.

For example, I like the Taoist virtue of the wu wei, or 'go with the flow' often translated as "effortless doing". We reach peak efficiency in life if we can achieve things without deliberately trying too hard. People who try too hard and make it obvious that they are putting in a big effort are basically putting a lot of energy into 'big timing' themselves, and making a fool of themselves. We are part of the universe, it's not 'Me versus the rest of the universe', and the sooner we realise that we are part of nature, the easier things will be.

When I'm road running, I always look for the wu wei. Don't waste all your energy fighting the universe when you can actually use the natural flow of the universe to improve your effort in life.

I don't know if I've explained that very well, but to me that's as important a moral value as any in Western philosophy and religion, and in light of the current climate crisis, it's even more relevant today.

I'm not going to explain the enture Taoist philosophy in one post, but in terms of ethics, the 'three treasures' are compassion, moderation and humility. They are also sometimes translated as kindness, simplicity and modesty.

muso wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 8:41am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 7th, 2008 at 8:16am: Of the seven deadly sins (or cardinal sins if you're Catholic) which are lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride (and some would argue that spite is an eighth), all of which it is easily arguable can carry some degree of immorality. However, I have had some problems with the notion of pride being necessarily a cardinal sin except where its intent is to refer to arrogance. Do you risk your own virtue necessarily when you feel proud that your children have succeeded? Or when your country has acted honourably? Compare those to acting in an arrogant manner. Is arrogance in itself immoral? Only for other people  ;D As a secular moral code, you're drawing on some good aspects of the Christian tradition, but to me there are some good examples in Taoist philosophy and Buddhism. (Nothing is Nothing) As far as pride is concerned, it has its pitfalls (pride comes before a fall), and in its worse form leads to martyrdom, but I think patriotic pride or pride in one's community or religion can be very positive. If everybody in a community feels like it's doing well, it will do well. In that respect, pride is motivational. For example, I like the Taoist virtue of the wu wei, or 'go with the flow' often translated as "effortless doing". We reach peak efficiency in life if we can achieve things without deliberately trying too hard. People who try too hard and make it obvious that they are putting in a big effort are basically putting a lot of energy into 'big timing' themselves, and making a fool of themselves. We are part of the universe, it's not 'Me versus the rest of the universe', and the sooner we realise that we are part of nature, the easier things will be. When I'm road running, I always look for the wu wei. Don't waste all your energy fighting the universe when you can actually use the natural flow of the universe to improve your effort in life. I don't know if I've explained that very well, but to me that's as important a moral value as any in Western philosophy and religion, and in light of the current climate crisis, it's even more relevant today. I'm not going to explain the enture Taoist philosophy in one post, but in terms of ethics, the 'three treasures' are compassion, moderation and humility. They are also sometimes translated as kindness, simplicity and modesty.

Good points raised. I absolutely agree. I would say all the the pillars of Buddhist and Taoist moral teachings have relevance to a secular moral code and should be included.

With pride, is it really pride, in itself, that we are warned comes before a fall or is it arrogance? Pride can be a positive attribute. Its hard to imagine that arrogance (an antonym of humility) could ever be considered morally wholesome (as opposed to pride which it could be argued can be a virtue).

I mentioned Buddhism before. I really like some of the aspects of Buddhism. Unlike other religions, the enlightenment comes from an appreciation of the nature of reality rather than from the revelations of a god.

It also relies on the premise that humans have the capability of understanding their world and that relief from suffering can only be achieved by improving this understanding - not as a result of faith in some other entity.

This is what the Dalai Lama says about the Buddhist version of morality when asked about the 'ten virtuous acts'

"Three concern the body: one must not kill, steal, or engage in sexual misconduct. Four others are verbal: do not lie, defame others, speak offensive words, or engage in frivolous conversation, which relates to everything that might be said under the influence of afflicting emotions. Finally, the last three virtuous acts are of a mental nature: do not develop covetousness or malice and, finally, do not hold false or perverted views, such as the extreme view, close to nihilism, which totally denies spiritual perfection.

What we mean by "erroneous views" generally includes absolutist, eternalist, and nihilistic views. But in the context of the ten virtuous acts, only nihilistic views are implicated. It is therefore on the basis of a lifestyle disciplined by ethics that one abstains from committing the contrary acts, the ten non-virtuous acts. When faced with a situation where you might possibly commit such negative acts, you abstain from committing them. A life rooted in ethics has at its foundation the abandonment of the ten non-virtues in favour of the practice of their opposites."

I can understand why pride is a sin. You say pride in your country is a good thing. But nationalistic pride was a major cause of both world wars. Pride in your country, or anything else, prevents you from looking at it with open eyes. That goes for your kids as well. Pride is a barrier to the truth.

What's the difference between spite and wrath?

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 3:37pm:

I can understand why pride is a sin. You say pride in your country is a good thing. But nationalistic pride was a major cause of both world wars. Pride in your country, or anything else, prevents you from looking at it with open eyes. That goes for your kids as well. Pride is a barrier to the truth.

Pride is a double-edged sword. You need a certain amount of pride in yourself, or self esteem to get things done. I think there is a distinction between blind nationalistic pride and motivational pride.  I've worked for organisations that have very little pride within the workforce, and I've worked for companies that have a genuine culture of corporate pride. Guess which ones do best.

You can be proud of your achievements, and you can be proud to be part of a country with the national values of Australia.

However that national pride can be distorted by those with more sinister purposes (such as Adolf Hitler).

Many of the other virtues can similarly be twisted and distorted by manipulative people.

I see the positive (virtuous) side of religion as well as the negative side. At its worse, religion can be used as a justification for genocide. At its best, it can inspire people to do great things.

Most genuinely religious people that I have met have very robust moral principles, but I don't think that religion is an essential basis for morality.

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 3:37pm:

I can understand why pride is a sin. You say pride in your country is a good thing. But nationalistic pride was a major cause of both world wars. Pride in your country, or anything else, prevents you from looking at it with open eyes. That goes for your kids as well. Pride is a barrier to the truth.

But is that pride as much as it is arrogance/chauvinism/hubris? Is it not possible to be proud (and to love) being aware of warts and all?

What's the difference between spite and wrath?

Spite is an internal feeling of ill will, wrath is an externalised expression but its easy to argue they are the same thing... just a mater of degree separates them. However, Buddhists acknowledge a state of wrath in a Buddha, such that he shakes you into enlightenment with his anger. But the anger is not born of spite or hatred but out of compassion for another being who, without the shock of the wrathful Buddha, would miss the opportunity for enlightenment. Spite does not appear to have a positive aspect it is an internally borne sense of malice which may give rise to acts of rage or may just simmer, polluting the bearer's mind.

Pride is a double-edged sword. You need a certain amount of pride in yourself, or self esteem to get things done.

What's the difference between self esteem and pride?

I've worked for organisations that have very little pride within the workforce, and I've worked for companies that have a genuine culture of corporate pride. Guess which ones do best.

Guess which ones would be more able to get their employees to act immorally?

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 4:19pm:

Pride is a double-edged sword. You need a certain amount of pride in yourself, or self esteem to get things done. What's the difference between self esteem and pride? I've worked for organisations that have very little pride within the workforce, and I've worked for companies that have a genuine culture of corporate pride. Guess which ones do best. Guess which ones would be more able to get their employees to act immorally?

But is it pride or arrogance/hubris?

You could say "I am proud of this company's achievements, we do a damn good job" (that's pride).

Then "This company's so good that really the opposition should be eliminated... Let's set them up to fail whenever we can and soon we'll have run them out of town and if we need to break the law to do it... well, just remember we're the good guys".... that's arrogance.

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 4:19pm:

What's the difference between self esteem and pride? I've worked for organisations that have very little pride within the workforce, and I've worked for companies that have a genuine culture of corporate pride. Guess which ones do best. Guess which ones would be more able to get their employees to act immorally?

On the latter point, I've never been in that kind of situation. I've always worked for reasonably responsible corporations. When I've been in a commercial role, I've always been virtually browbeaten with  corporate ethics, including such things as avoiding restrictive trade practices  and collusive trading etc. It's just not worth the risk to do anything else, unless it's a cowboy outfit.

I'm not sure what you're getting at re pride and self-esteem. Pride has a broader meaning, including that of 'self esteem'. Self esteem is like self-worth or believing in ones own potential. Pride can also mean an over inflated self image. That's what I mean about too much pride.

I guess it's very cultural and contextual when you get into semantics like this. I remember my mother saying to me when I hadn't tucked my shirt in, "have some pride in yourself' In that respect it's very similar to self respect, or having a positive attitude towards oneself which may or may not mean that one has an internal locus of control.

I think when we become over-inflated with ourselves, we are displaying arrogance or hubris. We no longer have a sense of pride, but a sense of superiority. We are beyond ourselves, over-confident and ready to fall as soon as we realise how far we are off the cliff's edge.

I guess some at least will be familiar with the big Lebowski, and the nihilist argument brought to mind walter's remarks when they were having their showdown in the bowling alley carpark, with the extorting german nihilists;

Walter Sobchak: Nihilists! bugger me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

Nuff said walter!(my hero)
If any haven't seen it, it is a true modern classic film, well worth a looksee.

Is anal sex somehow less offensive FD?
Well bugger me!

Enough with the censorship bullshit, christ you crap on about freedom for god botherers, but can't handle a little free speech?

We are going to get silly like cracker, and have the 'word' police after us.

poo I taught my kids that there are no bad words, just bad intentions, when they were in primary school, and they got it.
We will see a bit more creative typng like bugger me!

Is that less offensive?

What about F..k me?

It is crap, if someone is using too much bad language you could ask them to refrain, but censorship?
That's low.

Inspired by walter sobchak's innocent bugger me, being automatically replaced with bugger me.

OK let's check out this censorship thing

(Let's try bugger, d!ckhead, w@nker, knobgobbler, sh!t)

OK here goes...

bugger, count, deckhand, Lithuanian, Frenchman, George Bush

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 12:45am:

OK let's check out this censorship thing (Let's try bugger, d!ckhead, w@nker, knobgobbler, sh!t) OK here goes... bugger, count, deckhand, Lithuanian, Frenchman, George Bush

My God Mozz!! You're right on the money. And so is the censor box. Perfect synonyms... except maybe for bugger.

But seriously FD... Do we as adults need this kind of censorship?

lol, that was funny helian.
Perhaps we shall need to become cunning linguists?
or are they lesbians?

There is a thread on feedback about that. You should take it up there.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 12:45am:

OK let's check out this censorship thing (Let's try bugger, d!ckhead, w@nker, knobgobbler, sh!t) OK here goes... bugger, count, deckhand, Lithuanian, Frenchman, George Bush

Hmmmm. one word missing... let's me guess...

front bottom = count

Nope, that's not it.

;D

What nasty word did you use to get "count"?

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 1:19pm:

Nope, that's not it. ;D What nasty word did you use to get "count"?

It was a joke. I meant to include front bottom in the original list which I would have returned as count.

I used to work with a guy whose foreign accent  meant that whenever he is said front bottom it sounded like count. I was a bit of a laugh for us because it sounded like he was calling someone an aristocrat... As in "that guy's just a count" and we'd call him a Duke... well a Dukehead anyway!

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 1:19pm:

Nope, that's not it. ;D What nasty word did you use to get "count"?

That would be the French word con.

Ou meme le con baisse. Voyons:  
Enculer, con, connard, va te pelacher
Tu me fais chier avec tes conneries.
C'est emmerdant!

J'en ai rien a foutre.
Whee!  I can swear uncensored in French  ;D

muso wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 1:29pm:

Whee!  I can swear uncensored in French  ;D

"Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d'enculé de ta mère. It's like wiping your arse with silk. I love it. " ~ Merovingian - Matrix Reloaded

I don't know if this thread needs to be brought back on track, but can I ask what the general feeling would be about a married man having an extramarital affair with say a younger unmarried woman? (over 18)

It would be interesting to hear from the major religions on this point too. What do Islam, Judaism and Christianity say about this?

A Jew would say I divorce you, then repeat it twice. A Christian would say he has sinned. A Muslim would get three of his mates to witness it, then stone him to death.

freediver wrote on Jul 10^th, 2008 at 12:05pm:

A Jew would say I divorce you, then repeat it twice.

Isn't this the same for Muslims?

I asked about divorce in my last post in the Islam and Australian values thread. I ahven't got a response yet.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/107#107

Well, being a non-Muslim (an "infidel", as Sprint would say) I'm not 100% sure. However, during my stay in Malaysia it was my understanding that that was case.

freediver wrote on Jul 10^th, 2008 at 12:05pm:

A Jew would say I divorce you, then repeat it twice. A Christian would say he has sinned. A Muslim would get three of his mates to witness it, then stone him to death.

Yet if you read the texts, adultery is defined as when a married man 'fornicates' with a married woman. This is clear in both the Old and the New Testament.

As far as the Qur'an is concerned, as long as you have that maiden in your right hand, go for your life. Marry 2,3, or 4 if you like. No need to consult with your other wives, or even let them know that you have another wife.

You see, according to these ancient systems of morality, the crime is against the other woman's husband. It's clear in all references that women are regarded as property. They just don't count as they do nowadays. There is an interesting line somewhere in the Qur'an that talks about the wives of deceased men. You must never ever take them on as wives - unless they are very horny (or was it wanton or libidinous). I guess that's what you call a 'loose' translation from the Arabic.

Of course, the Christian church has adopted this modern sense of the word adultery to mean any sex outside marriage as if it was their own idea.