[Deucaon]

I would like to state that a person can reject the ethics of a society but still conform to that society as long as it benefited them or their ideals to do so.

To a religious person, religions may seem drastically different from one another, but to an atheist they don't. You'll find that all those groups think murder is bad, warfare for profit is bad, stealing is bad, adultery is bad, and living in harmonious community with others is good. Most have some form of ritual, and while the rituals differ from group to group they generally conform to normal social ethics (ie, no ritual sacrifices unless you're in a society that likes ritual sacrifice). So one group eats pork and another doesn't, one has one day of Christmas, while another has eight craaaazy nights! but you have to concede the obvious point that Jm was making: religions are created by society, not the other way around, and the ethics of society inform the ethics of the religion. Since there are no gods, the gods we invent will be like people and they will have such traits as people have. They will also demand that people behave in a manner conforming to society's accepted ethics. Which is convenient, since those are the ethics of the society even without the religion. When the society changes, then the religions either change to keep up, or they fall out of favour. Religion is a part of society, not the origin of it (the origin of society is farming, and consequently beer). So too ethics: they are a part of society, not the origin of it.

As I have stated before the monotheist religions like Judaism, Christianity or Islam are different polytheistic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism or Shinto which in turn are different from philosophical religions like Taoism and Confucianism. Comparing Judaism, Christianity and Islam does not prove anything as Christianity evolved from Judaism and Islam was heavily influenced by Christianity.

So if religion formed from society then why is there evidence of ritual sacrifices and burials done by humans before humans became domesticated? Didn’t they have ethics before the domestication of humans which dictated how a warrior must act, how a hunter must kill, were the place of a man and a woman was?

Ethics have been passed down by tradition and at the core of all those traditions is man’s superstitious beliefs.

Here's one: Do you think an Individual, but refusing to be a part of society's Code of Ethics, could change society's Code of Ethics?

Yes.

Can you think of any Individual who has ever done that?

Off the top of my head...
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.
Malcolm Little.
Martin Luther King Junior.
Galileo Galilei.
Nicolaus Copernicus.
Isaac Newton.
Stephen Hawking.
Albert Einstein.

Then there are those people who converted the various polytheist and pantheist societies into Christian and Islamic societies across Europe and Asia but those are too many to mention.

Hint: DON'T say "Jesus."

I wasn’t planning to.

[J m HofMarN]

Were you not programmed to be nice by the various people in your early life?

Yeah thats called socialization. Most animals tend to do that except for a very few which eat their young and stuff. But I think most mammals are all about socialization even if they haven't got any societal hierarchy.

So then I am brought back to my original question: do these codes restrict the ability of a single human? If society are advanced by individuals then do ethics impair the ability of individuals to advance a society?

Then I am brought back to everyones answer: No. I don't think you have a proper ability to make divisions between societal mores, ethics, religious rituatl, and so forth.

Because that society evolved from that religion or that religion heavily influenced that society later in that society’s development.

How in gods name can society evolve from religion. A family is a dod gamned societal unit. To have a religion it must be passed on. So a societal unit is required for religion to continue to exist. Listen, take a high school class on sociology and call me in the morning.

They don't. If you compare monotheist religions like Judaism, Christianity or Islam you will find it has little in common with polytheistic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism or Shinto. Then there are philosophical religions like Taoism and Confucianism which are also dissimilar to those stated.

Ok thats good. I know Judaism has little in common with Buddhism. But I bet the ethical code they follow is where most of that common ground lies.

I would like to state that a person can reject the ethics of a society but still conform to that society as long as it benefited them or their ideals to do so.

Yes, and then when they have their opportunity they'll do unethical things to gain power. That's known as cunning. Cunning is a good trait for someone to have, but may and probably wont, always be good for society. Cunning can sometimes be good, but a lack of ethics in general never is good.

So if religion formed from society then why is there evidence of ritual sacrifices and burials done by humans before humans became domesticated?

Cuz corpses tend to smell. Good god this is basic logical thought. And no, religion does not predate society. Superstition does, yes. But in order for true religions to form towns or tribes are required. In order for those to form a basic code of ethics is required. Humans formed towns so they could share in mutual defense and share food and warmth and so forth. Towns could not have formed without ethics, religion could not have persevered without towns. Religion was born of superstition. A family had a hearth god or goddess. That family became prominent due to skill in farming or hunting or so forth and slowly their hearth deity was adopted. The ethical ideas of the town were the same regardless of which god was adopted by the town/tribe. Ethics are a seperate thing from religion. To imply that religion begets ethics is to beg the question of why you havent been ass raped by a dozen atheists today alone.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.
Malcolm Little.
Martin Luther King Junior.
Galileo Galilei.
Nicolaus Copernicus.
Isaac Newton.
Stephen Hawking.
Albert Einstein.

They changed society's ethical code? They had their own separate ethical codes? Are we even still talking about ethics? Copernicus fricking discovered that the moon does not revolve around uranus. That doesnt have anything to do with ethics.

And the people didnt give a damn. It was the church that had a problem. That was a religious matter, not an ethical one.

Stephen Hawking changed ethics? How? What did he do, declare it unethical to push a guys wheel chair over a cliff?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 27 April 2008 - 10:19 PM

[Deucaon]

Yeah thats called socialization. Most animals tend to do that except for a very few which eat their young and stuff. But I think most mammals are all about socialization even if they haven't got any societal hierarchy.

How in gods name can society evolve from religion. A family is a dod gamned societal unit. To have a religion it must be passed on. So a societal unit is required for religion to continue to exist. Listen, take a high school class on sociology and call me in the morning.

Cuz corpses tend to smell. Good god this is basic logical thought. And no, religion does not predate society. Superstition does, yes. But in order for true religions to form towns or tribes are required. In order for those to form a basic code of ethics is required. Humans formed towns so they could share in mutual defense and share food and warmth and so forth. Towns could not have formed without ethics, religion could not have persevered without towns. Religion was born of superstition. A family had a hearth god or goddess. That family became prominent due to skill in farming or hunting or so forth and slowly their hearth deity was adopted. The ethical ideas of the town were the same regardless of which god was adopted by the town/tribe. Ethics are a seperate thing from religion. To imply that religion begets ethics is to beg the question of why you havent been ass raped by a dozen atheists today alone.

Animals interacting and working with each other is called a society. Societal ethics which is what keeps said societies intact are passed on by traditions. Those traditions have an origin in prehistoric religion. That religion is based on a man's fear and intrigue of the unknown.

Religion is ritualized superstition.

Ok thats good. I know Judaism has little in common with Buddhism. But I bet the ethical code they follow is where most of that common ground lies.

You would lose that bet.

Then I am brought back to everyones answer: No. I don't think you have a proper ability to make divisions between societal mores, ethics, religious rituatl, and so forth.

Yes, and then when they have their opportunity they'll do unethical things to gain power. That's known as cunning. Cunning is a good trait for someone to have, but may and probably wont, always be good for society. Cunning can sometimes be good, but a lack of ethics in general never is good.

Say a religious leader is using his followers to further his wealth. He states that him being rich is the will of his god. His corruption would be "good" if it didn't break the ethics of the society around him. Say if someone kills that religious leader to free the people from being exploited. The someone takes the role of the religious leader and changes it so the former ruling class has no power. That someone has just done something unethical and yet he has helped advance society.

They changed society's ethical code? They had their own separate ethical codes? Are we even still talking about ethics? Copernicus fricking discovered that the moon does not revolve around uranus. That doesnt have anything to do with ethics.

And the people didnt give a damn. It was the church that had a problem. That was a religious matter, not an ethical one.

Stephen Hawking changed ethics? How? What did he do, declare it unethical to push a guys wheel chair over a cliff?

1. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
2. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.
3. Malcolm Little.
4. Martin Luther King Junior.
5. Galileo Galilei.
6. Nicolaus Copernicus.
7. Isaac Newton.
8. Stephen Hawking.
9. Albert Einstein.
10. Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela.

1 started a revolution to separate the state and church in a country whose ruling party were either religious leaders or heavily influenced by the chosen religion of their country. 2 overthrew a ruling class that had ruled his selected country for 800 years. 3,4 and 10 changed the segregation laws within their countries. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 changed scientific ethics by changing how scientists saw their studies and some of them changed societal ethics by going against the ruling party and traditional thought of their time.

[J m HofMarN]

Animals interacting and working with each other is called a society. Societal ethics which is what keeps said societies intact are passed on by traditions. Those traditions have an origin in prehistoric religion. That religion is based on a man's fear and intrigue of the unknown.

Then how can animals form cooperative societies? Are you implying that wolves worship the moon or what? Do you believe that lions worship the great Zebra Giver? Jaysis man. But you have revealed your thesis:

Ethical behavior stems from fear.

My response:

No it doesnt. To take a page out of Donnie Darko, I think ethical behavior is on the Love side of the life line.

Say a religious leader is using his followers to further his wealth. He states that him being rich is the will of his god. His corruption would be "good" if it didn't break the ethics of the society around him. Say if someone kills that religious leader to free the people from being exploited. The someone takes the role of the religious leader and changes it so the former ruling class has no power. That someone has just done something unethical and yet he has helped advance society.

You're mixing up "improper" or "generally frowned upon" with "unethical" Corruption and exploitation are inethical. Revealing them is ethical. Doing the ethical thing is always ethical no matter what people think. And in this case once the people realized they were being deceved they would accept your guy who revealed the corruption and say that was niec of him before they put him on trial for murder as is ethical.

1 started a revolution to separate the state and church in a country whose ruling party were either religious leaders or heavily influenced by the chosen religion of their country. 2 overthrew a ruling class that had ruled his selected country for 800 years. 3,4 and 10 changed the segregation laws within their countries. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 changed scientific ethics by changing how scientists saw their studies and some of them changed societal ethics by going against the ruling party and traditional thought of their time.

1: Ok but how did his actions conflict with ethics and how did he change the ethical code of people?
2: Same
3 4 10: :"Black people aint people" is not an ethic. It's a prejudice. And their behavior was not unethical. It was indeed more ethical than those they were against which is why they won to one extent or another.
5 6 7 8 9 : What? Scientific ethics? How can a scientist change societal ethics? Just cuz the earth doesn't revolve around the sun it doesn't mean that forceable sodomy is suddenly ethical to most of society.

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, I said that religions are not much different from one another in their approach to human ethical interaction. You made the leap of faith and concluded that I was comparing Judaism with Christianity and making no other comparison. Therfore the opnus is now on you to prove to me with links and sensible argument that there are polytheistic religions at play on this planet that condone murder, rape, torture, theft, and various other breaches of ethical behaviour. If you can do that, and you can show that these exist without censure in the same societies that overall hold those things to be unethical (this is key, so be careful with your historical examples), then I will concede the point. If you can't, then you haven't convinced me that polytheistic religions are sufficiently different from monothesistic ones. Nontheistic, philosophical religions will require similar proofs, eg "zen buddhists say it's ok to murder, and here's proof." If you can't show any religion to have significant different ethics than the society it exists in, then you have not convinced me that religions do not exist within the ethical boundaries of their parent societies. I say that as social ethics change, the religions change to keep up with them. Every now and then social norms change too much for some religious types and the religious types start killing people to preserve their way of life. Most of the time these measures fail, and the religion either dies or evolves to meet the needs of the changed people.

As for your list of proofs, no, none of those people acted unethically in order to change the ethics of society. Society evolved around them.

1. Was a fan of the social changes at play in other societies, and wishing to bring his nation in step with the rest of the world, worked to convince people that change was needed. He became a part of a movement in his nation to evolve society, and as a part of that movement he was a part fo a social development enacted by thousands of people. As a result he brought his nation from one of the most backward in the western world to slightly less backward.

2. There is nothing especially unethical about declaring a war of class against class; it's a part of human history and we condone that socially. Had Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov changed his society by serial murdering people and making furniture out of their skin, you might have something. But what did he do? He convinced people to wage war against the ruling class, a completely normal thing that happens all the time everywhere. He did not reject social ethics, and when he was done, social ethics were the same. You mention that he removed a ruling class that had been in power for 800 years. Okay, yes. He did not, as you impy, change his society. He did not remove the idea of a ruling class, he only changed the names of the people in it. Some of the things done by his party include bringing the nation out of the feudal era and into the industrial era, which meant that the people after the revolution were about 200 years behind the rest of the world, but working to catch up with it. You'll need to go a lot further if you hope to convince me that Lenin behaved outside standard operating procedures or that he fundamentally transformed the society he acted in. Other revolutionary figures, the same. I don't know of any revolution that transformed a government type from one to another overnight. Social changes have always been group decisions enacted by the bulk of the people. All any individual has ever done is to get noticed while the changes were taking place.

(Note: you're getting into interesting territory here, and you may get somewhere if you praise successful terrorist movements. I dare say somewhere in there you might find the example you need, but buried as it will be among the global history of gradual social change, it will stand out more as an exception than a rule)

3. Malcolm X may have behaved unethically here and there, but he's a bad example because he didn't change society one bit. His main contribution to social ethics was to reject slavery, which had already been done by consensus in his country nearly a hundred years prior, and to join a religion which had already been in play for centuries. He also aligned himself with changes in attutudes toward the status of minorities, changes that were already becoming mainstream by the time of his speeches and activities. He was a big figure, and lots of people know his name, but he was just a part of something that was already happening, and the changes that were taking place were taking place in courtrooms and in congress. He's about as important to the development of American ethics as your average movie star.

4. MLK made some nice speeches, but he was not the only person doing that. And he behaved ethically. Some of his detractors behaved unethically, stirring up violence at his protests, illegally taping private conversations, etc. Again, not massively terrible stuff, but certainly outside the accepted norms, and without a declaration of war. King was assassinated, which is a hugely unethical act, by folks who wanted him to stop turning attention to minority issues (and who claimed that he was dangerous). Had the unethical act of assassinating King succeeded in returning the US to a segregated or a slave state, then you would have an example of an unethical act changing society. However, it had little effect, or possibly (according to some) an effect that is the opposite of what the assassin intended. Also, it was not the work of a single individual; while there was one gunman, this is the one assassination conspiracy of the 60s that has actually been proven.

5-9. For all the scientist arguments, I don't think you've properly defined what you mean by "acting unethically" or "changing society's ethics," because now you're talkig about dudes who in some cases discovered stuff and in others rediscovered stuff (like Copernicus, whose theory of the heavens was already old news). Do you think that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity changed the way that we study science? Or had an effect on our opinions about murder, rape, torture, robbery, etc? Any business about how churches resisted discoveries by certain scientists and therefore those scientists must have been acting unethically is hogwash. Religious organisations don't define the ethics of a society, so they can't simply say "it is unethical to discover stuff we don't like." Religious organisations are just a part of society, like I've said. The biggest ones are like corporations; they may wield a lot of political power, but like WalMart, they are no more than that. Religious powers may have behaved unethically from time to time, trying to suppress discoveries because they were inconvenient and there was a fear that a change in popular science might mean a loss of religious authority (look at the Intelligent Design controversy even today). Their unethical behaviour in destroying the work or another man, or of trumping up charges against that man so that they could imprison him and suppress his work, doesn't make the scientist unethical. By the way, 4 out of 5 of the scientists you named were immensely popular in their own lifetimes, especially the final three. All were religious men, Newton deeply so (and for MC out there somewhere, not so much Einstein). Newton and Hawking held prominent positons at their universities, Newton also being a knight of the realm and President of the Royal Society. I appreciate that Sir Isaac Newton was a valuable and important individual, and that many revere him as the greatest scientist who ever lived, but what about his life or works marks him as "unethical?" How is he an example of the "unethical" man breaking with society to advance it?

10. Nelson Mandela did behave unethically, committing a small terrorist act as part of a protest against apartheid. He was imprsoned for this terrorism. 27 years later, when apartheid was repealed as a part of a growing global movement against race-related politics, Mandela was freed from prison. Loads of people who like to praise individuals over social movement acted as though somehow Mandela, sitting in jail for 27 years, had singlehandedly changed the world. A lot of these people were impressionable coeds; all one had to do in those days was to parrot notions of peace and freedom (and maybe say that you though Tracy Chapman was an unrecognised genius), and you were going to get laid. I had a lot of unethical sex in my college days, but I don't think I changed the world.

On to the rest of your post:

The business of the human sacrifices being really old, I have to side with Jm and ask what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that these human sacrifices predate society itself? If so, who did them? Did they act alone? Where did they live? Who did they sacrifice? Where did the victims live? Etc. I am not sure if you're trying to make a claim that religious practices predate society, and that therefore all social activity is defined by religion (this is garbage anyway; soccer predates NASCAR, and NASCAR is not defined by soccer). I am not sure if you are trying to say that religion existed even before people communicated the idea to one another. If so, what created it? Certainly not people communicating with one another, so are you making the claim that religion was created by God? Not that you should care much, but you'll find that I disagree. I say that it is obvious that people found a way to communicate with one another, then they established, mostly by unspoken consent, what their ethics were to be, and then they started making up shit like actual laws and art and science and religion and Beowulf.

Say a religious leader is using his followers to further his wealth. He states that him being rich is the will of his god. His corruption would be "good" if it didn't break the ethics of the society around him. Say if someone kills that religious leader to free the people from being exploited. The someone takes the role of the religious leader and changes it so the former ruling class has no power. That someone has just done something unethical and yet he has helped advance society.

I don't think anyone has ever done this, but ok. Society then changes so that the ruling class takes on a different name or value. But unless the religious authority held absolute sway over popular opinion (never happened), and unless the new religious authority held similar sway and changed all of the norms (never gonna happen), ie it's now ok to rape, murder, ectort, etc, where before it was not, you're just swapping one ruler for another. And in your example, the new ruler does what? He takes on power in order to give it up? ABSOLUTELY never gonna happen. But I'll bite: what society has this dude in your example created, if there is no ruling class, or the one that he creates is completely powerless? Is a society with no government to be seen as a social advance? Has this ever happened? And ultimately, does a change in government type change the ethics of a society? PS: I think this happened in the movie STARGATE. I can't think of any historical examples.

None of this addresses why you ask whether one must behave unethically in order to a. be an individual or b. change society.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 28 April 2008 - 02:40 AM

[Deucaon]

Then how can animals form cooperative societies? Are you implying that wolves worship the moon or what? Do you believe that lions worship the great Zebra Giver? Jaysis man.

Why don't you ask the wolves? If they can communicate what makes you think they don't belief in a spiritual power? Just because they don't have the right skills to build a shrine or the fingers to dig a grave doesn't mean they don't believe in things.

But you have revealed your thesis:

Ethical behavior stems from fear.

My response:

No it doesnt. To take a page out of Donnie Darko, I think ethical behavior is on the Love side of the life line.

So you help an old woman cross the road because you love her?

Deucaon, I said that religions are not much different from one another in their approach to human ethical interaction. You made the leap of faith and concluded that I was comparing Judaism with Christianity and making no other comparison. Therfore the opnus is now on you to prove to me with links and sensible argument that there are polytheistic religions at play on this planet that condone murder, rape, torture, theft, and various other breaches of ethical behaviour. If you can do that, and you can show that these exist without censure in the same societies that overall hold those things to be unethical (this is key, so be careful with your historical examples), then I will concede the point. If you can't, then you haven't convinced me that polytheistic religions are sufficiently different from monothesistic ones. Nontheistic, philosophical religions will require similar proofs, eg "zen buddhists say it's ok to murder, and here's proof." If you can't show any religion to have significant different ethics than the society it exists in, then you have not convinced me that religions do not exist within the ethical boundaries of their parent societies. I say that as social ethics change, the religions change to keep up with them. Every now and then social norms change too much for some religious types and the religious types start killing people to preserve their way of life. Most of the time these measures fail, and the religion either dies or evolves to meet the needs of the changed people.

You're the one who made the claim that all religions have the same ethical backdrop, you are the one who should prove it.

The business of the human sacrifices being really old, I have to side with Jm and ask what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that these human sacrifices predate society itself? If so, who did them? Did they act alone? Where did they live? Who did they sacrifice? Where did the victims live? Etc. I am not sure if you're trying to make a claim that religious practices predate society, and that therefore all social activity is defined by religion (this is garbage anyway; soccer predates NASCAR, and NASCAR is not defined by soccer). I am not sure if you are trying to say that religion existed even before people communicated the idea to one another. If so, what created it? Certainly not people communicating with one another, so are you making the claim that religion was created by God? Not that you should care much, but you'll find that I disagree. I say that it is obvious that people found a way to communicate with one another, then they established, mostly by unspoken consent, what their ethics were to be, and then they started making up shit like actual laws and art and science and religion and Beowulf.

If you have an Encyclopaedia Britannica account then go here.

None of this addresses why you ask whether one must behave unethically in order to a. be an individual or b. change society.

Not being constraint by ethics is not the same as being unethical.

You're mixing up "improper" or "generally frowned upon" with "unethical" Corruption and exploitation are inethical. Revealing them is ethical. Doing the ethical thing is always ethical no matter what people think. And in this case once the people realized they were being deceved they would accept your guy who revealed the corruption and say that was niec of him before they put him on trial for murder as is ethical.

I don't think anyone has ever done this, but ok. Society then changes so that the ruling class takes on a different name or value. But unless the religious authority held absolute sway over popular opinion (never happened), and unless the new religious authority held similar sway and changed all of the norms (never gonna happen), ie it's now ok to rape, murder, ectort, etc, where before it was not, you're just swapping one ruler for another. And in your example, the new ruler does what? He takes on power in order to give it up? ABSOLUTELY never gonna happen. But I'll bite: what society has this dude in your example created, if there is no ruling class, or the one that he creates is completely powerless? Is a society with no government to be seen as a social advance? Has this ever happened? And ultimately, does a change in government type change the ethics of a society? PS: I think this happened in the movie STARGATE. I can't think of any historical examples.

Ethics are not universal laws and they change in time. Ethics are a way of thinking and don't represent universal morals but instead represent the social norms of its time. Ethics do not determine what is good and what is evil but what is right and what is wrong. An ethical way of thinking is the right way of thinking and not the good way of thinking.

[civilian_number_two]

You're the one who made the claim that all religions have the same ethical backdrop, you are the one who should prove it.

Not so. I made the claim that all religious organizations within an area, say North America, have evolved to meet the ethical standards of their region. We all have the same understanding of ethics, and yet there are dozens of religions, so I hold that this it is self-evident that religion is a product of the society. You came forward and made the bold claim that there are fundamental ethical differences between the monotheistis, polythesitic, and nontheistic religious groups in a given area (say North America). This is not self-evident (I can't see any evidence for it), and it demands some exposition. You were willing to make the claim, so I dare say it shouldn't be any effort to back it up. I am perfectly happy dropping religion from this discussion altogether, but as it's a sticking point of some kind for you you should really argue your case.

(However, since I don't really mind, here goes. Christian Ethics we know, Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. You have already dismissed comparisons with Judaism and Islam. So I'll jot down what I know of the others you mention.
Hinduism: Hindu ethics promote social welfare through self-control, charity, and compassion (Da). Adherence to ethical norms is believed to be necessary to the preservation of Hindu culture.
Buddhism: wasn't sure what to say about this so I will link the first web page I can find:
http://www.buddhanet...g/budethics.htm
OK, so that looks a lot like the Ten Commandments. The basic premise of all that being "A mind that is skilful avoids actions that are likely to cause suffering or remorse." So, do no harm, be compassionate, do things in moderation.
Shinto is a lot of anscestor worshiop, and the will of the gods, but two basic tenets of Shinto include not disobeying the decrees of the state and to remember that the world is one family. Ok. So treat other people like family, and obey the law.
Taoism is a load of pretentious babble about inner peace, but the basic principles of its ethics are simple: selflessness, moderation, non-contrivance, detachment, and humilty. Pretty sure that adds up to not killing people, but if you need proof you can read any taoist webpage written by a person living in the West. You'll see a lot of shit about pebbles disturbing the pond, but along the way you'll be treated to loads of socialist and law-abinding pacifism.
Confucianism: In the words of Confucius himself, ""What one does not wish for oneself, one ought not to do to anyone else; what one recognises as desirable for oneself, one ought to be willing to grant to others." Gee, that sounds like that "Golden Rule" of Christianity, cited above.)

To sum up, I hold that the monotheists, the polytheists, and the nontheists in the West all agree with the majority that murder, extortion, rape, robbery, faulty election math, racketeering, and whatnot and soforth are unethical. You hold that maybe Buddhists or Shintoists think differently about some of these things than Jews do. I hold that since the people of an area created religion, and that the people of an are share an ethical code, that the erligions of an area will share an ethical code. I don't know of any religions promoting, say, extortion. Even the Church of Satan holds the basic principle "Do no harm." I'm pretty sure the same church would not have held that principle had it been around 2000 years ago; see below.

If you have an Encyclopaedia Britannica account then go here.

Thanks. There is not a single article there suggesting the existence of human sacrifice dating back before people lived together in community. Therefore, human sacrifice, whether it be connected with religion or not, was a part of a social practice. It did not exist before some form of society existed. Again, this is self-evident; without community, there is no religion. Maybe before there was community, there would have been killing (doubtless there was), but you'll need to prove to me that it was ritualised and/or derived from religious belief. Somehow you'll need to find evidence of the ritual and the religion without any written record, since of course langauge wouldn't exist without society. And while you're at it you might want to remind us all what the existence of prehistoric ritual sacrifice has to do with the suggestion that it is only by abandoning social ethics that a society can progress.

Ethics are not universal laws and they change in time. Ethics are a way of thinking and don't represent universal morals but instead represent the social norms of its time. Ethics do not determine what is good and what is evil but what is right and what is wrong. An ethical way of thinking is the right way of thinking and not the good way of thinking.

Yes. Thank you for coming around and repeating what I have been saying. Ethics are socially accepted behaviours within a society. These are the framework of a society's laws, as well as of its religious morality. Societies change over time, and the ethics change with the societies. Consequently the religions adapt to these same changes. The religions, being diverse and unaffiliated with one another, have all become more moderate in the West as that region has evolved away from violent interaction to a greater fixation on commerce. I don't know why you brought religion into it, but in any case religion did not define ethics; they are a social construct, JUST LIKE RELIGION IS. We invented ethics and we also invented political parties and we also invented religion and gods. Since there are numerous religions, but we basically agree on ethics, then it has to be the religions that adhere to the ethics, not the other way around.

For instance, try asking a typical Christian what they would do if God asked them to commit murder, esp of an innocent child, say of his only son. 2000 years ago a man would say "If God asks it, then it is right." Today, you'll always get waffling of the sort "God wouldn't ask me to do do that." Why not? Because it would be wrong, and the religion that people have created today doesn't allow for a God who would ask anyone to do anything that is wrong. The religion's source material hasn't changed, but the religious person feels differently about the God described in it. This is because the religion has changed to follow the less violent social norms of the day.

[Deucaon]

I claimed that ethics evolved from religion which was and is ritualistic superstition. That humanity created ethics and its subdivisions because humans were fearful of what will happen to them when they die. I never stated that ethics and religion were the same thing.

If you look at the various societies around the world who have different religions you will find that they are radically different from each other. The ethics of those societies have been somewhat obscured after the colonization of Africa, Asia and America by various European empires and after globalization occurred but they are still very different. So if all religions have the same fundamental ethics then why are the societies that they have spawned so radically different from each other? Could it be that they are not as straightforward as you make them seem?

[Slade]

And again, I say that I see no evidence to support your claim that ethics originally existed out of fear of punishment in an afterlife. Society by its nature had to exist before religion could, and there could be no fear of eternal damnation or perpetual rock pushing until the religious folk said so and were believed by converts. (Even if God/Goddess etc. did talk to people to start religion, it was not a religion until the people said deity talked to amassed followers.) Yet again, I say that ethics evolved primarily as a set of guidelines for peaceful interaction between societies and members of the same society. And fundamental ethics are just not the only thing that influences culture and societal development. Religion can influence them (it didn't come first), as can the food they eat, the climate they live in, the animals and plants they interact with, etc. India reveres the cow because it ancient times it was absolutely crucial to their agricultural society to the point where most of their day to day living involved interacting with their livestock in some way other than eating them. You REALLY need to show some examples of why you believe what you do, otherwise this debate is going to keep going like this:

Deucon: All ethics are formed from fear and superstition of religion and hinder society.

Other people: No, here's why.

Deucon: All ethics are formed from fear and superstition of religion and hinder society.

Other people: No, here's why.

Et cetera ad nausem.

Are you not reading people's posts? Are they somehow not compelling enough, and if so, why? Are you not understanding people properly? If you want to say that religious ethics hinder society I'm all for it, but all ethics being born of fear/superstition just doesn't work. That would mean every non-religious person would either be a sociopath or follow society's ethics just to stay under the unethical radar. As a non-religious person, I have to say neither is the case. I recognize that some rules are necessary and logical to uphold for the maintenance of a peaceful society. I don't rape or murder when I am angry because I recognize the consequences of my actions in terms of both society and the effect on the person I would inflict harm on. Golden rule, utilitarianism, pragmatism, etc.


JM: I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

This post has been edited by Slade: 28 April 2008 - 10:13 AM
Reason for edit:: Clarity.

[Deucaon]

What caused humans to stop beating each other over the head before they became domesticated? What gave humans things like honour and respect? Those things also came from feeding pigs and tending crops?

For clarity, I never stated the some higher power gave humans the idea of god or the afterlife. I believe that it is man's fear of the unknown that put those ideas into their heads and that those fears have evolved over 100,000 years and have ended up as ethics through the passing of traditions like honour, respect and decency which would not have existed had humans not thought that they were going to be punished had they not been good to each other.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 28 April 2008 - 10:30 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon: What caused humans to stop beating each other over the head before they became domesticated? What gave humans things like honour and respect? Those things also came from feeding pigs and tending crops?

Biologically, humans are a social species. Infant humans take longer to make it to adulthood than any other mammal, and are completely dependent on their parents as well as other adults for at least 5 years. Humans have always been domesticated, because the ape-like species they evolved from was already domesticated. They are not unique in the animal kingdom for this. Wolves, hyenas, elephants, all primates, etc are already domesticated. Even the big cats have a kind of community; when an alpha meets another alpha, it is not always a fight to the death. We have zero evidence that apes or big cats worship gods, and I won't entertain the notion. So no, it was not religion that domesticated people. It wasn't ethics, neither, but a survival necessity. Also, our big brains make us want to be around others of our kind, for entertainment, but that's another story. Anyway, community has to exist before any code of common ethics, and both will probably exist before communication (not necessarily language). Communication is necessary for religion, unless you believe that religion was created by actual Gods who did not require that humans were able to communicate the concepts of the religion to one another. I won't entertain that notion either.

To directly answer the question above, yes, a common goal such as herding pigs or tending crops would be enough to convince people to behave ethically toward one another. You don't need to add an extra level such as fear of God or the Afterlife when something as simple as survival necessity, complicated as well by the enjoyment of another's company, is already there. But to answer your question indirectly, standards of behaviour were in place well before the pigs-and-crops phase.

Your question about how can societies in ONE COUNTRY be different from societies in ANOTHER COUNTRY is deliberately ignorant of my entire post. Yes, if we go back 2000 years, and visit Italy, the most powerful nation in the Western World, we can see a slave-owning, elitist, violent culture worshipping multiple gods and demanding that conquered nations revere its emperors themselves as gods. The conquer-and-plunder ethics of that society determined the religious practices of those people. Its style of religion was a product of its style of government. Meanwhile, something similarly feudal but in many ways different was going on in Japan, a place with which IT HAD NO CONTACT. Yes, societies form differently in different places, and as such they develop different religions. Your question asked about diverse peoples in different places separated by geography and not shariung a common language. The examples I cited in my post were of people all living in one place and speaking to one another all the time. So I fail to be convinced by your deliberate misreading of my post.

Getting back to my post, the religion of the old Roman Empire is gone. It has no place in our current society. The religion of those Japanese is still with us. more or less. You asked me to compare various world religions, presumably to show that people all over the world are different. Since that has nothing to do with what I am saying, I declined. Instead I visited websites created by North Americans and read what they had to say about their religions as they existed in North America. Those various and diverse religions as they exist in North America are ethically similar. Perhaps Confucianism is a horse of a different colour in China, but here it's ethically quite similar to the "Do as you would have done" ethics of all religions in North America. This, again, is because the religions have adapted to meet the cultural standards of North America.

Thought experiment: Imagine a group of people right now trying to establish a virgin-raping, human-sacrificing, monkey-brain-eating cult whose mandate was to burn public property that it believed was owned by its gods. How long do you think it would take for that religion to completely change North American culture so that we all thought that was the ethical standard? Or say, try to imagine a group trying to establish into law the right for grown men to fuck young boys, like they did back in the Classical period? When will society get off its high horse and respect the religious or philosophical freedoms of its diverse people? (Hint: never. Society will tolerate religion and philosophy so long as the religion or the philosophy conforms to its ethics. Hint2: the first example was just nonsense, so don't look for a real world equivalent.)

Honestly, Deucaon, and I hope this sounds like an ultimatum, if you don't agree with me, that's fine. But trying to frame it as though you don't understand me, deliberatley ignoring the points I have clearly made, is irksome. If you are sure that religion came first, then ethics, and then people began living in community, well there's nothing I can do about that. You're entirely wrong since communication is required for a common religion, so society naturally needed to come first, but I'm not going to say that again. If you're sure that you're right about this, please tell people elsewhere on the internet about it, and see what they have to say. You have no converts or fellow-thinkers here.

For clarity, I never stated the some higher power gave humans the idea of god or the afterlife. I believe that it is man's fear of the unknown that put those ideas into their heads and that those fears have evolved over 100,000 years and have ended up as ethics through the passing of traditions like honour, respect and decency which would not have existed had humans not thought that they were going to be punished had they not been good to each other.

We all get it. I am not convinced that you don't believe in God, but who cares? You are certain, and there is to be no doubt, that it is belief in God that has been singularly responsible for creating order in human society instead of Chaos. Oddly enough, you also believe that it only by challenging order that human society has ever changed. So you think that ethics are responsible not only for allowing society to exist but also for challenging its growth.

You bring up honour and decency, and say that they are born from fear. I say nay nay. Honourable, decent guys are reliable, and as such they get hired for important jobs. The boldest warrior or largest bully in the world can only get so far on cracking skulls before a hundred snivelling weaklings make a trophy of his spine. Community, communication, and a desire for positive feedback from other living, breathing human beings makes people act decently toward one another. I doubt most people think of God on a regular basis. Your certainty that somewhere in the back of their minds is a fear that God will get them if they aren't nice to people, well that's your own religious bugaboo. I don't try to deny that religion has been with us a long time, but no way will I imagine that it's the source of decency. At best, again, I will say tat religion is a product of society, and in some societies religious groups have had the power of politicians. But no way is decency all about fear; the majority of it is the good feeling folks get when others praise them for their good work, or thank them for their help, or in many cases, actually reward them. You will find if you have pets or kids that positive feedback is better than negative feedback in training them. It's community and communication, a desire for immediate positive feedback, that makes folks behave as they do, not fear of punishment. That and the evolution of a survival necessity born from the fact that we are so utterly helpless in our infant years.

If you have something new to say on this Howard Roarke-styled, abandon-religion-forced-ethics -as-only-tool-for-social-progress, please do. I still don't see that course as anything more than an exception. As I view history, the majority of social change has come about through communication, acting in community, and group decisions. Resistance to change has occasionally been unethical, but the majority of the change itself has come about ethically. But I will concede at the very least that this is a potentially interesting discussion. The discussion of which came first, Religion or Ethics? is turning into a skipped record.

And while you're at it, define "progress." I just see that societies change, but there's some old world idea that change is part of some path toward greater complexity or to some other positively-charged notion of superiority. This notion is at the heart of the popular understanding of evolutionary mechanics as well, and is a part of that big argument. Well, for that to be the case, then there needs to be an end goal of the change, and then you're bringing in a Master Plan, maybe an Intelligent Designer, all that jazz. All of that stuff is religious, and I don't believe in God, so it sounds unconvincing at best and possibly silly. As I see it, societies change, and they change their ethics and they change their religions. Often these changes come with changes in geography, with comfort and wealth, with industry and technology, etc. To say that religious forces mandated all of these changes requires a pretty strong argument. You could use the US Civil War in your argument, where Democracies on both sides sang hymns to the same God and yet so fundamentally disagreed on the subject of State Rights and Human Slavery that they divided families and murdered one another by the thousands. I'd be curious to see what you had to say about that.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 28 April 2008 - 10:29 PM
Reason for edit:: added some stuff

[J m HofMarN]

Why don't you ask the wolves? If they can communicate what makes you think they don't belief in a spiritual power? Just because they don't have the right skills to build a shrine or the fingers to dig a grave doesn't mean they don't believe in things.

*Sigh* I asked the wolves. They said that they actually have a highly evolved intelligence and are building a crude suspension bridge to Venezuela where they will assume odd jobs under the name of Mr. Pilkington.

Also, generally when someone says that wolves do not have religion in a debate, it's best to concede the point, cuz if you ask them to cite sources you look like an asshole.

So you help an old woman cross the road because you love her?

No I do it because I fear that if I dont, she will banish me to hell forever.

If you have an Encyclopaedia Britannica account then go here.

I dont think encyclopedia britannica is going to help your point that religion predates society. Ethical behavior is as old as society. That is a logical fact. Without ethical behavior there can be no society. Can the same be said for religion? No. Not unless you follow your absurd logic and say that ethical behavior stems from religion.

Not being constraint by ethics is not the same as being unethical.

Let's put that in a somewhat more understandable term. Not being constrained by pants is not the same thing as not wearing pants.

Pants are made to keep your dick from flopping about and hitting people just like ethics are. So we must assume that to be unconstrained by pants is to have your dick flopping about. Not being constrained by pants is therefore the same thing as not wearing pants. If you walk about with your wang hanging out of your pants, you might as well not be wearing pants in the first place.

What I guess you meant is that you can not be afraid of being unethical and still be ethical. My answer: Duh. Because ethics do not stem from fear.

Ethics are not universal laws and they change in time. Ethics are a way of thinking and don't represent universal morals but instead represent the social norms of its time. Ethics do not determine what is good and what is evil but what is right and what is wrong. An ethical way of thinking is the right way of thinking and not the good way of thinking.

No they dont. Core ethics pretty much remain the same. What changes is society and the things that are considered acceptable. No one believes that homosexuality is evil, it just isnt currently acceptable in some places because its a bit weird. Its not a question of changing ethics. Can you give me an example of a situation where doing something that is right might be evil, or where doing something that is wrong might be good? And where do good and evil come from anyhow?

I claimed that ethics evolved from religion which was and is ritualistic superstition. That humanity created ethics and its subdivisions because humans were fearful of what will happen to them when they die. I never stated that ethics and religion were the same thing.

So your logic goes like this.

Pre history: a bunch of wolves wonder around. Suddenly Wolverine appears to them.

Wolverine: "Attention wolves! Stop killing eachother at random! Do not gnaw on eachothers sex organs! Do not eat your young! Communicate and work together, bub!"

Wolves: "Sure thing sir! Now that we have ethics we can form a society!"

And how did a fear of what happens when we die lead to ethics? They seem to have nothing to do with the next world and everything to do with this one. Religious edicts are not related to ethics. Jews dont eat pork so God wont roast them on a spit, this is true. But Jews dont throw live pumas at me because to do so would be inethical. Do you see the difference?

Also, I know you're going to respond by saying that the only reason live pumas are not being tossed at me every time I stroll by the local synagogue is because Jews are quaking in their little Jew boots that if they do Yahweh will spank them. My response is, obviously, "fuck you".

So if all religions have the same fundamental ethics then why are the societies that they have spawned so radically different from each other?

If all people need to eat the same basic foods to survive, than how can people all be so different from eachother? Therefore my theory that you survive solely on a diet of coca leaves and coffee is perfectly sensible because all people are not the same and therefore cannot concievably have similiar dietary needs.

What caused humans to stop beating each other over the head before they became domesticated? What gave humans things like honour and respect? Those things also came from feeding pigs and tending crops?

Ok... Is it possible that humans never beat eachother over the head for fun? How would we have even fucking reproduced? A species that goes about murdering members of their own species for no fucking reason WILL be extinct in a matter of decades. And unless you are going to continue to postulate that wolves, grasshoppers and electric eels all worship their own gods, youre going to need to admit that a desire to be as good to eachother as possible while still setting aside for our own preservance is hardwired in to us and not put their by Wolverine the Wolf Lord.

Also, what do honor and respect have to do with religious dogma? Nothing. They're societal creations, not religious. If a man has no honor and doesnt keep his promises, no one will do business with him and he dies. And if a man is honorable, he should do much business, be respected, and have good status. Is this why people try to be honorable in their actions? No. To say that all human actions are based either of fear of god or on a desire for self betterment is as absurd as saying that all actions are based on fear or love.

For clarity, I never stated the some higher power gave humans the idea of god or the afterlife. I believe that it is man's fear of the unknown that put those ideas into their heads and that those fears have evolved over 100,000 years and have ended up as ethics through the passing of traditions like honour, respect and decency which would not have existed had humans not thought that they were going to be punished

Where did the fear of punishment come from? Why is it such a big theme? Hey, I have an idea.

Maybe, in a FUCKING SOCIETY, someone (like you) suddenly asked why we had to follow ethics, and a wise person like Civ or Slade or myself tried to explain. Finally they got tired of it and just said that if you didnt behave God would kick your ass. I can very, very easily comprehend that motivation.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 28 April 2008 - 10:21 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

Hmm... While I mostly agree with your arguments, I must point out that wearing pants doesn't necessarily mean that the pants are constraining you - you are still able to live your whole life practically the same, wearing pants, than not wearing them.

Also, I promise you that the purpose of my pants is NOT to keep a dick from flopping or whatever

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 29 April 2008 - 12:29 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Just as having ethics doesnt necessarily mean being constrained.

Also, its sad that the most logical rebuttle I've seen to one of my posts in this thread has been to state that your pants are not meant to keep a dick from flopping. So I concede that point, but must still counter with Damn You Spoon Poetic!

[civilian_number_two]

Spoon, I am doing my best not to think of you with no pants on.

Jm, good on you to bring the grasshoppers and the Electric eels into this. I had intended to mention that the majority of the species on Earth don't go about killing one another all the time, and that I doubt fear of punishment in the afterlife has anything to do with it. I find it hard to imagine that worker bee #10162 is worrying that if she doesn't supply enough sugar for the royal jelly then she might burn in the everlasting fires.

Also, it should be noted that a notion of the afterlife is an advanced religious concept. There are zero primitive religions that had with them a concept of a spirit world, or a life after death. So the evolution of community is like this: Hanging out together, not killing one another, followed by rudimentary coimmunication, followed bu codified set of ethical principles (above and beyond the stuff worked out by hanging out, the "scratch my back, I scratch yours stuff), followed by religion and/or government, followed by advanced religion and/or advanced government. Some of the advanced religions have an afterlife worked into them, some don't. Some that do say that folks who behave unethically might suffer in the afterlife, some don't. The afterlife, a tier 2 religious concept, absolutely did not precede people hanging out together. People were hanging out together so far back we have vestigial tailbones to show for it.

Ethics did not evolve from religion, though yes, religion did evolve from superstition and gaps in human knowledge (not necessarily the same as "fear of the unknown"). And society does not grow from both the existence of ethics and from community as well as from individuals acting in defiance of ethics. I mean, take your pick.