![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 29th, 2004 09:51 pmThis was a rebuttal to Ella and Kevin's arguments, but I was so proud of the end result and it's controversy, I decided to post it. For context, see it here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/kmcd/81524.html
Morality is relative, because what is it that you are supposed to empathize with? Every living thing? The reason there was the holocaust and slavery is because the people were taught to empathize only with people of certain ethnic groups. So the whites only empathized with whites, so blacks could be abused in anyway they want. And Jews were the start of everybody's problems so empathizing with them was technically wrong.
So, you might say you should empathize with everything? Where do you stop?
In our society, it is commonly accepted to empathize with people of all races and sex, possibily even sexual preferences. However, should we empathize with human like animals? Then how is it fair not to empathize with non-human like animals? And if we empathize with all animals? what about plants? and germs?
The Jainists reached this "ultimate empathy", but they could only eat when people gave food to them. Little did they know that they were killing germs every breathe they took. Which would be wrong to them. (many of these people starved to death)
On the other hand, religion is not the cure for this. The only reason religion ties in with morality is because when morals are questioned, religious people use their religion and religious texts to justify their social standards. What better way to justify something vague than by pointing to a vague "ultimate truth". The whites inflicting slavery in the American south claimed that there was some where in the bible that said white people were put on earth by god to rule over the others. And in the holocaust, many of the germans believed that they were being good christians. And in modern times, people take rights away from homo-sexuals, with the bible's hostility toward the sodomites as back-up.
The hostility towards homosexuals was created by social standards, not by religion, people just use it to back them up. Which is why I said, when steve got angry at christainity because of his host parents, "[in terms of religion:] don't hate the game, hate the players" Because it's not christainity that's doing that, they are just using it to back their own social standards up.
So there, you're both wrong. Being religious in a strict sense doesn't directly make you more moral. And Morals are indeed relative. Boo yah.
So, I think, there are 2 ways to be satisfied with the desicions you make or your morality:
1) Don't look back at it, or even think about it. Ignorance is bliss. You won't care about your morality becauseyou won't be aware of anything that might make you guilty.
2) Think about it very very intensely. Meditate often about what is best for you, for everyone involved and the future. And then hope that this deep thinking will lead you in the right direction.
Morality is relative, because what is it that you are supposed to empathize with? Every living thing? The reason there was the holocaust and slavery is because the people were taught to empathize only with people of certain ethnic groups. So the whites only empathized with whites, so blacks could be abused in anyway they want. And Jews were the start of everybody's problems so empathizing with them was technically wrong.
So, you might say you should empathize with everything? Where do you stop?
In our society, it is commonly accepted to empathize with people of all races and sex, possibily even sexual preferences. However, should we empathize with human like animals? Then how is it fair not to empathize with non-human like animals? And if we empathize with all animals? what about plants? and germs?
The Jainists reached this "ultimate empathy", but they could only eat when people gave food to them. Little did they know that they were killing germs every breathe they took. Which would be wrong to them. (many of these people starved to death)
On the other hand, religion is not the cure for this. The only reason religion ties in with morality is because when morals are questioned, religious people use their religion and religious texts to justify their social standards. What better way to justify something vague than by pointing to a vague "ultimate truth". The whites inflicting slavery in the American south claimed that there was some where in the bible that said white people were put on earth by god to rule over the others. And in the holocaust, many of the germans believed that they were being good christians. And in modern times, people take rights away from homo-sexuals, with the bible's hostility toward the sodomites as back-up.
The hostility towards homosexuals was created by social standards, not by religion, people just use it to back them up. Which is why I said, when steve got angry at christainity because of his host parents, "[in terms of religion:] don't hate the game, hate the players" Because it's not christainity that's doing that, they are just using it to back their own social standards up.
So there, you're both wrong. Being religious in a strict sense doesn't directly make you more moral. And Morals are indeed relative. Boo yah.
So, I think, there are 2 ways to be satisfied with the desicions you make or your morality:
1) Don't look back at it, or even think about it. Ignorance is bliss. You won't care about your morality becauseyou won't be aware of anything that might make you guilty.
2) Think about it very very intensely. Meditate often about what is best for you, for everyone involved and the future. And then hope that this deep thinking will lead you in the right direction.
