Give Me Some Good Old Secular Ethics
A priest says stealing is okay as long as you're robbing big business. From CNN:
Tim Jones, parish priest of St Lawrence and St Hilda, told his congregation in York, northern England: "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift."Jones, who according to the church Web site previously worked in Corinth, Mississippi, made his comments about what he regarded as acceptable behavior by those in need when they were desperate.
In a transcript of his sermon published in the local newspaper, "The Press," Jones said: "I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.
"I would ask that they do not steal from small family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices."
Hitchens uses Wright to mop the floor on how thinking one has divine permission encourages people to behave badly. Here's the whole thing from Bloggingheads:
The truth is, we have evolved morality -- and Hitchens talks about this in the piece about "a certain degree of reciprocity, altruism, and mutual aid" as part of our evolved adaptations. Hitchens' comment that "Children have an innate sense of fairness," is another example. These adaptations make it possible for us to live among each other. At root of manners, by the way, is empathy: thinking how would it affect you if I do such and such and caring about that.
My own evolved adaptations against violent behavior, plus the constraints of the computer screen, keep me from reaching through it and wanting to throttle the grating Robert Wright. It's a high price -- but still worth it -- for hearing Hitchens on the issue.
We could always steal from churches as the money the recive is donated freely and "god will provide"
lujlp at December 23, 2009 1:55 AM
Um, I'm on Hitch's side, but Wright kept him honest and a little more in this one. "Poisons everything" is a higher standard than our immigrant is prepared to demonstrate.
If you tell Wright I said that I'll deny it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 23, 2009 2:06 AM
The truth is, we have evolved morality -- and Hitchens talks about this in the piece about "a certain degree of reciprocity, altruism, and mutual aid" as part of our evolved adaptations.
If this is true, then we have also evolved other things, eg. religious awareness of a higher power, revulsion at homosexual behaviour, etc. in a very similar manner.
If we cast off these latter intuitions due to our massive contemporary enlightenment, what's wrong with the people who cast off altruism and mutual aid as a result of a similarly learned evaluation of what's true and what's in their self-interest?
If we think that enlightenment makes us cast off religiosity and homophobia, but insist on retaining our ethical sense, then we must believe that ethics has some higher or deeper source ...
Engineer at December 23, 2009 2:42 AM
Hitchens uses Wright to mop the floor on how thinking one has divine permission encourages people to behave badly.
Instapundit recently linked to a study that showed that people who engaged in a "green consumer" activity were more likely to cheat in a subsequent lab test. Seems to be pretty much the same principle ie. that people use feeling virtuous as a justification for their behaviour. Or that being "virtuous" part of the time is sufficient for a lot of people.
Engineer at December 23, 2009 2:49 AM
If this is true, then we have also evolved other things, eg. religious awareness of a higher power, revulsion at homosexual behaviour, etc. in a very similar manner.
Posted by: Engineer
If this is true then explain our revultions and indeed outright rejection of this 'higher powers' morality and commandments.
lujlp at December 23, 2009 3:54 AM
Doesn't the bible say: "Thou shalt not steal"?
Mike Hunter at December 23, 2009 4:20 AM
If this is true then explain our revultions (sic) and indeed outright rejection of this 'higher powers' morality and commandments.
You misquote me ("higher power" ??)
Children often ask where we come from; adolescents often shun gays and view them as repulsive. These attitudes are rejected as part of the typical enlightened secular education.
Adults often decide that selfishness and materialism works for them better than altruism.... do they not (especially certain types of rich people)? And if they do isn't it just another example of rejecting (on a "rational" basis) an innate attitude?
Also: why should we bother teaching children about sharing, kindness etc? If they have it in their genetic code, then great ... and if not then who cares ....
Engineer at December 23, 2009 5:14 AM
Oops You didn't misquote me. Sorry.
But I stand by the other paragraphs I wrote.
Engineer at December 23, 2009 5:16 AM
Adolecents tend to shun anyone of the oppoiste sex before they hit puberty - is that evidence of original sin?
lujlp at December 23, 2009 5:30 AM
Adolecents tend to shun anyone of the oppoiste sex before they hit puberty - is that evidence of original sin?
Please resist the urge who mock Christian doctrine (especially since I don't subscribe to it).
The point is that if:
a) evolution has bestowed certain preferences on us (via our genes)
b) these genetic preferences are the real basis of ethical behaviour (as Amy stated)
c) we can choose to overcome these preferences as a result of our rational calculations
then it follows that:
d) we have no place criticizing a Wall Street baron who doesn't see any benefit in helping poor people, since he's no different from (to take an example of Amy's) a 19-year old woman who eschews serious relationships and pursues hookups, or indeed from the person who unlearns their 8th-grade homophobia in high school.
Your boy-girl "cooties" example is irrelevant to my argument. Though the logical consequence of your position might be that if Obama appointee Kevin Jennings headed an organization that recommends sexually explicit stories to grade-schoolers then that's just fine because kids can choose to opt out of the cooties stage if they want.
Engineer at December 23, 2009 6:00 AM
Bah. Plenty of secular people think it is A-Ok to steal, from big business or otherwise. And I don't give a crap that stealing is wrong, if my kid needs food or medicine and I can't get it any other way, I'm stealing it. I doubt that would ever happen, DH and I both have good work ethics and would scrub toilets in necessary, and we have lots of family who would help us, but still. I'd steal before I'd watch someone die for lack
I'm getting bored with the "grab one isolated instance of one christian doing something bad and use it to condemn religion" thing. We could all start grabbing instances of atheists or others doing or advocating bad things and use it to condemn all atheists, too. We'd be here for eternity.
momof4 at December 23, 2009 6:14 AM
I'm getting bored with the "grab one isolated instance of one christian doing something bad and use it to condemn religion" thing.
So am I, I perfer to use the sorce material to blunt stupid objections
We could all start grabbing instances of atheists or others doing or advocating bad things and use it to condemn all atheists, too. We'd be here for eternity.
Posted by: momof4
People do all the time
lujlp at December 23, 2009 6:42 AM
Re: Reverend Jones - I am a Christian. I will come out and state he is wrong to encourage stealing. Wrong to encourage thinking that the ends justify the means.
We as Christians are supposed to be a light in a fallen world. We are called to strive every day to being the person God wants us to be. God does not want anyone to steal from another. He wants you to humble yourself and ask for help if necessary. If you are not needy, do not ignore but help those in need.
Re: Hitchens - I disagree whith his point that divine permission has encouraged people to behave badly. By what degree would the world's bad behavior change if religion disappeared? Sounds good but there is no proof that religion drive bad behavior. Only proof that religion does not eliminate bad behavior. If the people doing bad things thoughout history did not use religion to justify them, does that mean those bad things would not happen? Or does it merely mean that those people would use something else to justify them?
Unless you believe that a world without religion will eventually evolve to achieve human perfection, you must ask the question. Was religion the cause of many of history's evil acts or the justification? Hitchens offers no proof one way or another. He just points the finger and blames.
LoneStarJeffe at December 23, 2009 7:10 AM
"I'm getting bored with the "grab one isolated instance of one christian doing something bad and use it to condemn religion" thing."
Huh. As if this was an "isolated instance".
And you've just used the "Two Wrongs" excuse. Nice going. You're favoring the minister's advice to steal.
And, Engineer, you really need to read up on your fallacies. It's a do-it-yourself thing.
Radwaste at December 23, 2009 7:10 AM
Not exactly: "I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither."
Nevertheless, this priest certainly reminds us, by being the exception that proves the rule, how ethical the vast majority of priests, pastors and other religious leaders are. If even a significant minority were like him, we wouldn't have to go all the way to England to find a target for our thirty second hate.
Pseudonym at December 23, 2009 7:20 AM
"We could all start grabbing instances of atheists or others doing or advocating bad things and use it to condemn all atheists, too."
In that case, you'd commit more fallacies. No atheist speaks for a religion if advocating theft. No atheist has a supposedly supreme book of laws, much less within it a commandment not to steal.
------------------------
But I digress. A moral system is developed in every society, even among chimps and bonobos. Among humans, it sets rules for behavior which are part/parcel of a structure determining the success or failure of that society.
Caucasian Protestants set up the USA. However flexible you think the "morals of the country" might be, the society which resulted, one in which individuals can possess more than they can physically hold at one time because of the expectation of property rights, has prospered because of these expectations.
Kleptocracies are miserable places to be. Look around. Where there is no punishment for theft, it impoverishes everyone.
Radwaste at December 23, 2009 7:23 AM
Being in the lodging business, I can attest that stealing is prevalent. Mostly small things - towels, blankets, dishes, and so forth. I even have a friend who always takes towels from her hotel stay. She sees nothing wrong with this, and she's not alone. It seems to be presumed that we, the owners, expect such theft and, therefore, it's ok.
lovelysoul at December 23, 2009 7:50 AM
"Seems to be pretty much the same principle ie. that people use feeling virtuous as a justification for their behaviour. Or that being 'virtuous' part of the time is sufficient for a lot of people."
I have concluded, based on my experience, that the more someone tells me about their relationship with the almighty or their sense of honesty, the more likely it is that such person will lie, cheat or steal at some point in any business relationship we have.
Whether cheats use such talk as cover, or if the person is sincere in their sense of personal godness but simply fail to deploy it consistently, I don't know. I just know that, like Emerson, the louder someone talks of his honor or faith, the faster I count the silver to make sure it is still there.
Spartee at December 23, 2009 8:15 AM
"Children have an innate sense of fairness,"
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
I think it goes something like this: "MINE!"
No wait, that's their innate sense of generosity.
Pricklypear at December 23, 2009 10:50 AM
Funny, pricklypear. You're right. I don't know why anyone things kids are so innately fair. Some are; some aren't. Just like adults.
lovelysoul at December 23, 2009 11:29 AM
Yeah, lovelysoul, the little dudes can really surprise you, in both directions. As you said, just like adults.
Pricklypear at December 23, 2009 1:15 PM
Please resist the urge who mock Christian doctrine (especially since I don't subscribe to it). - Engineer
Well then what 'higher power; do you subscibe to?
I'll make a special effort to mock that just for you - what can I say? I'm a giver
lujlp at December 23, 2009 3:57 PM
Want an example of "secular ethics"? Here you go - when being a church official isn't enough to be ethical, the court order can set you straight...
Radwaste at December 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Talk about a strawman argument!
This is CHURCH OF ENGLAND - one of the uber-liberal Protestant sects who have regularly subverted Christian doctrine to "Political Correctness."
No doubt this reverend gent has slapped "Coexist" bumper stickers on all parish vehicles, and is hosting "getting to know you" meetings with the local Muslim mullahs.
The moral relativity expressed here is that of modern left-liberal Bolshevism. Nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian moral yardstick.
So:
When such churches throw over doctrine to embrace, say, homosexuality - we applaud them.
When they express the same skanky moral relativism as any other kumbaya "progressive" - we twist that into a condemnation of religious folk.
Nice trick.
Ben-David at December 23, 2009 10:27 PM
> little dudes can really surprise you,
> in both directions. As you said,
> just like adults.
Not very often. Sometimes you get lucky, but abject selfishness is the typical human condition at birth. Loving parents dial in something better with twenty years of adjustment such that in many cases, you can't tell intrinsic kindness from the practiced kind. And you don't need to.
> When such churches throw over doctrine
> to embrace, say, homosexuality - we
> applaud them.
Do you have energy about this? Are you the one who was talking about the suicidal gays a few months ago?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 24, 2009 4:31 AM
Ahhh, Crid - I see "having energy" is the new hip-jive.
Could you address my point: The moral relativism and class entitlement that the liberal-leaning pastor expressed is not chargeable to Judaism or Christianity's tab. He is expressing the conclusions of leftie "liberation theology".
It is thus dishonest to cast such as pastor as representative of backwards Judeo-Christian "hatred" (which was the hip-jive before "energy" - but "energy", being less specific, better serves the needs of hipster PC blow-smoke-while-avoiding-the-issue discourse).
Ben-David at December 24, 2009 8:25 AM
Also the church of engalnd is even dumber than most religions as it is based soley on the divine right of a dead serial killer to divorce and or murder women who did not give birth to male heirs
lujlp at December 24, 2009 9:28 AM
> Could you address my point:
Not sure we should bother, as long as you're bringing up so many others that might bring your stated interest into question. It seems there's something else you wanna talk about.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 24, 2009 11:49 AM
Ok, here's a consideration of your point: That pulpits can (so often) host the foolishness already afflicting the larger culture doesn't recommend them as sources of guidance.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 25, 2009 1:16 AM
Leave a comment