Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Pope spreads a little more hate around the world Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    I'm pretty convinced that an atheist cannot know what is absolutely right and what isn't.
    An atheist cannot know what is absolutely right because nobody can know anything for sure about ethics. No matter how strongly a religious person believes, they still don't know, factually, whether they are right or not, thats what faith is about.

    but if you meant that atheists have no basis for absolute morality, then you're also wrong:
    Kantian ethics works for atheists.
    Environmental ethics can guide humanity through an absolute moral path, however wrongly or rightly, with no deity (im thinking specifically of Gaia Theory, look it up if you're not familiar)

    There are some ways of arguing that every ethical code, however relative it might claim, has an absolute basis. (e.g. utilitarianism is relative and attempots to maximise 'pleasure', whatever that might be, for the most people... an absolute rule.)
    Conversely, religious ethics can be extremely relativistic as well.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gesar)
    The fact that the roman Catholic church takes priests, lets them abuse small children and then moves the priests before they can be convicted. And yet they won't let a perfectly moral openly gay man become a priest. I take this as saying the Catholic church thinks that paedophilia offenses against small catholic choir boys is more moral than grown men consenting to sex with each other. But I don't think that's their official line.
    The tradition of priests as we have now is embedded in Canon law (made up of traditional conventions), and is not therefore a dogma meaning that it could be changed in the future. Obviously, we have gay priests within the Church today, it's not a matter of them performing their job improperly or that we think they are incapable of providing pastoral support, it's about legitimising acts which are against traditional beliefs (some might disagree with them, some might not). Personally, I don't think it is for the legislature to affect the traditions of a religious community in the United Kingdom simply because it can. The Roman Catholic Church only serves those that are a part of it and those who wish to be in communion with it; we don't spread hate, cause injustice or try to change the will of the people who aren't Catholic, we simply serve those who share the same beliefs. It seems hypocritical that a national legislature which has only 128 female, 15 ethnic and 2% openly gay MPs itself is imposing legislation which imposes regulations on the terms of entry for other entities but not itself.

    Ask yourself, does it really matter that gay men aren't allowed into the Church? Would there really be as much of a debate in the context of imposing such limiting conditions on other faiths? No, of course not. In fact, in the case of the latter, I doubt there would be any debate at all. Indeed, there's another terrible hypocrisy in that those who cry about 'all' Catholic priests molesting children (and are therefore prejudging them before even beginning to understand the faith and its teachings) are at the same time forcing us to ensure equality and fairness for all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    So in essence you believe that Governmental legislation was not warranted in cases of Blacks being told that they could not enter certain restaurants, for example.
    Yes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You've made a lot of points but they beg even more questions.

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    Fundamentally wrong has no definition that i can think of that does not include fundamentally good, but fundamentally good is an act or an intrinsic part of an act which is able to be universalised for all humanity, which even the most varied of all non-corrupted minds will recognise as good in every exclusive situation.
    What's a non-corrupted mind?

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    by 'exclusive situation', i mean a singular situation with no paradoxes or conflictions making things stupidly complex.
    But the world is complex. I challenge you to find me an example of a "fundamental good".

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    I am arguing that there are some absolute moralities. morality on the whole is relative but not every part of it is. in my opinion, at least.
    Interesting. Where does this absolute morality come from? What is it? Not unrelated - you don't have to answer this if you don't want but it would help: do you believe in God?

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    Your point is why we have democracy. Societies work in a way that there must be rules or there will be anarchy and chaos.
    I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules. I'm asking whether the rules should be influenced by morality or not. And your postulations that, firstly, anarchy is bad and, secondly, anarchy leads to chaos are definitely arguable, but that's WAY offtopic.

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    Normally people come to a society that they either agree with the rules for or they can live with, but the rules must be suited to as many people as possible. not everyone thinks the speed limit should be 70, but its not an unreasonable rule to impose on everyone because it protects people from harm.
    What is society?

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    The society that we live in tries, as best it can, to protect people and provide the most happiness and the most opportunity for everyone.
    I'm not saying it doesn't do this, but again, consider the situation where 51% of the population vote to kill the other 49%, because it would make the 51% happy. Is this how the government can work? It isn't a choice between democracy and anarchy, by the way. It's not even a choice between democracy, anarchy and dictatorship.

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    Discrimination, in its worst form, harms people severely and causes racial abuse and plenty of other wrongs. I don't think anybody honestly argues with that point. I also don't think many people would argue that the line between what is acceptable discrimination and what isn't, isn't clear, if there at all.
    but i dont think that discrimination actually benefits anybody significantly.
    I have no doubt that those who discriminate against others for any reasons are wrong. Of course the key word in this sentence is "I". I also believe that, ultimately, those who discriminate are only harming themselves. But you can't take away their right to discriminate because there is no end to what rights can be taken.

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    Equality is a way to remove discrimination as much as possible, getting rid of personal opinions in situations where it shouldnt matter and telling people to judge people based on what is relevent, not get distracted by other attributes.
    Where does the right to "tell people to judge based on what is relevant" come from?

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    we live in a mixed society and people should learn to accept differences, which is hard for some people to do, but they are the ones with the problem, not the people who are different.
    Isn't this a bit hypocritical? I'd say that the majority of people support gay rights, black people's rights and many other minorities' rights. The ones who don't support these rights are, in actuality, the minority. Why can't you accept that they'll always be different and, regardless of whether the law is passed or not, won't support gay rights, black people's rights etc?

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    Christian morality can be argued to be anti-gay to some extent, and any Catholic who believes in that should be allowed to also believe that being gay is a sin and they'll go to hell for it, but by accepting that perhaps these people might disagree with you and want to believe their own thing, they can still be tollerant.
    Doubtless, but read above. Why can't you be tolerant of their belief in being intolerant?

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    It works both ways, either equality (which not everyone agrees with) is imposed on everyone, or inequality is allowed for everyone (anything inbetween is unfeasable to decide how it should work fairly) which allows catholics to impose their beliefs, shunning, attacking, persecuting and overall causing the suffering of those who they believe are sinful. Equality is not an attack on people's opinions or beliefs, its a protection for minorities' well being. the new minority who don't want equality are not having their well being compromised by it. gays, blacks, women, muslims etc. all may well be having their well being compromised by inequality. which is the greater good?
    Ah, so you're agreeing that "equality" is imposed by Harman's bill. Tell me, without using morality, what's the difference between imposing equality and imposing death. Or imposing equality and imposing servitude. Or imposing equality and imposing rape. Or any other thing you find immoral. Tell me, without saying "its right, its good, its wrong, its evil" or any other value judgement, what the difference is between imposing equality and imposing something you think to be evil.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    An atheist cannot know what is absolutely right because nobody can know anything for sure about ethics. No matter how strongly a religious person believes, they still don't know, factually, whether they are right or not, thats what faith is about.
    Replace the word "know" with "believe" then, whatever.

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    but if you meant that atheists have no basis for absolute morality, then you're also wrong:
    Kantian ethics works for atheists.
    Environmental ethics can guide humanity through an absolute moral path, however wrongly or rightly, with no deity (im thinking specifically of Gaia Theory, look it up if you're not familiar)
    I'm not familiar with Kantian ethics actually. Could you recommend a book for me to read about it? Also a webpage that summarises it would help.
    Also, I don't believe environmental ethics is an absolute doctrine of ethics. And I'm somewhat familiar with the Gaia theory but I don't quite know how that can extend to morality. I'm tempted to ask what you mean but I'm quite wary of going off-topic, so it doesn't matter.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spread_logic_not_hate)
    So true. This attitude of 'pick and choose the rules to suit' might explain why religious groups demand laws that affect ALL of us be banned or changed because of their beliefs. I agree they have a right to believe what they want, but I don't agree that they have the right to impose this on others who do not. Is this not an infringement of the rights of others?
    Obviously not. Once cannot rely on 'rights' when what is being argued is that the law should be changed - it's bloody silly.

    Yes, religious people apply their morality to others. So does everyone else with a moral compass.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If there really is such a place as hell, then surely the Pope is going there. He is so full of hatred and bigotry, and is a disgusting excuse for a human being.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    the pope is a ****. nevertheless he is correct in this case, but for all the wrong reasons.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by kristheleader)
    you must be a freak then from tre tramp shop down the road
    Actually bimbos usually think everyone else is normal so that must be you :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Totally agree with the pope, well said imo!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Obviously not. Once cannot rely on 'rights' when what is being argued is that the law should be changed - it's bloody silly.

    Yes, religious people apply their morality to others. So does everyone else with a moral compass.
    The difference here is that most people with a moral compass have their moral beliefs for a reason, not because a book tells them to believe that. Murder is wrong because of the effect that accepting it would have on society, not because it's been accepted for a while so we "might as well continue opposing it".

    Hatred of gay people is not a moral belief, because there is no rational reason for homosexuality being immoral. It is a religious belief, and should not be forced on nonbelievers any more than they should be forced to believe in the religion's deity to begin with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Love how reasons against equality are justified, 'I know ur equality law bez important - but Big Guy In The Sky says homos are bad'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iota Null)
    The difference here is that most people with a moral compass have their moral beliefs for a reason, not because a book tells them to believe that. Murder is wrong because of the effect that accepting it would have on society, not because it's been accepted for a while so we "might as well continue opposing it".

    Hatred of gay people is not a moral belief, because there is no rational reason for homosexuality being immoral. It is a religious belief, and should not be forced on nonbelievers any more than they should be forced to believe in the religion's deity to begin with.
    Frankly I think taking moral guidance from the Almighty is rather better than listening to the jumped-up nonsense trotted out by most people. Catholics benefit from having a consistent and respected moral stance, with centuries of history behind it - that is far more than most others in this country can boast.

    A religious belief is not some sort of ring-fenced stance from other moral beliefs. Perhaps you believe I shouldn't be subject to the Labour Party's laws because I'm not working class? It's truly ridiculous - if you believe in morality, then it applies to everyone.

    Murder is wrong because of what it'd do to society? That's pretty ****** up, if you ask me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Frankly I think taking moral guidance from the Almighty is rather better than listening to the jumped-up nonsense trotted out by most people. Catholics benefit from having a consistent and respected moral stance, with centuries of history behind it - that is far more than most others in this country can boast.
    That's because other people's moral stances often change depending on the current situation, and evolve. The fact that something is well-established doesn't make it right. Applying the death penalty for being atheist was accepted until relatively recently -- do you suggest that this should continue to be the case simply because it's traditional?

    A religious belief is not some sort of ring-fenced stance from other moral beliefs. Perhaps you believe I shouldn't be subject to the Labour Party's laws because I'm not working class? It's truly ridiculous - if you believe in morality, then it applies to everyone.
    A religious belief with no rational backing should be separate from other people's beliefs. If I arbitrarily decide to start a religion that advocates the brutal murder of anyone eating hot cross buns and their families, is it then reasonable for me to force this moral belief on others and criticise them for not following this belief?

    Murder is wrong because of what it'd do to society? That's pretty ****** up, if you ask me.
    How is it messed up to suggest that there might actually be a reason for it being immoral? The worst case scenario is that people start applying "eye for an eye" treatment liberally, which destabilises society.

    Okay, I should have mentioned the obvious effect it has on the victim and those related to them, which doubtless contributed, but things which would destroy society if they were made totally acceptable are considered morally worse than things which only affect people on a small scale. This is probably how murder came to be unacceptable in the first place, while things such as racism remained acceptable for centuries even though they affect people on a personal level.

    EDIT: I should have writted "murder was originally considered to be wrong". My mistake.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:


    Yeah I don't really have anything to add here...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry I didn't reply before, I was enjoying the discussion, but unfortunately had to leave suddenly. Hopefully you'll get this at some point soon. If you don't want to continue the discussion then thats fair enough and thanks, it was most enjoyable and insightful.

    (Original post by Hy~)
    You've made a lot of points but they beg even more questions.
    Philosophy and ethics always does. It's very hard to argue anything without explaining the entire worldview, you can argue every point down to the finest detail, but all you'll get are basic disagreements most of the time. I do try to explain as much as I can though.

    (Original post by Hy~)
    What's a non-corrupted mind?
    I said that because if i had just said 'any mind' then you could have said 'well, not someone with a predisposition to kill. or often people who are in positions of power commit attrocities. I believe those people have a disorder of some sort which removes or weakens the morality their mind (if that makes sense), this is what i meant by corrupt.

    (Original post by Hy~)
    But the world is complex. I challenge you to find me an example of a "fundamental good".
    Examples I would give or fundamental goods are things like truth, beauty, life, justice, happiness etc. but they do not appear by themselves, they are only aspects of something more complicated. Kant's Categorical Imperative is all about that. It's a shame you're not familiar with his ideas, he is a very heavy influence on most of my philosophical and ethical outlook.

    (Original post by Hy~)
    Interesting. Where does this absolute morality come from? What is it? Not unrelated - you don't have to answer this if you don't want but it would help: do you believe in God?
    I'm open to the concept that some form of creator deity may exist, but i do not believe that this deity would play an active role in the world/universe now, nor that morality is a part of that. For most purposes I can be considered atheist.

    (Original post by Hy~)
    I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules. I'm asking whether the rules should be influenced by morality or not. And your postulations that, firstly, anarchy is bad and, secondly, anarchy leads to chaos are definitely arguable, but that's WAY offtopic.
    Again, its hard to stay on topic whilst getting somewhere with this kind of issue. I think there has to be a balance. Duty, justice, morality and freedom must all be taken into account; or more basically: things that should happen, things that deserve to happen and things that are right, all the while maintaining freedom and resisting oppresion.
    In my opinion, there are many more things that need to be removed from society, not just discrimination, but that isnt the point.

    (Original post by Hy~)
    What is society?
    That could go into a whole other debate and last hours upon hours, but at the basic level if you look at human history, groups of people have grown together and struggled for life, then when living becomes easy, the mind focuses on something else, science, philosophy, sport etc. are born. these sorts of things tie together society. but when groups get bigger, conflicts get more common and worse. whichever rules benefit the survival of that society and the people within it best are the ones which should be adopted. this could all be argued against and is just my opinion on it. it's not too relevent really, except that when anarchy occurs, and this has proven to be the case throughout history, most of the time it is followed swiftly by chaos, lots of suffering, lots of struggling, reductions in well being and in the end pretty much everyone is happy that its over or dead. an anarchist society may well work on a small scale, but on a large scale i am doubtful it could be managed without chaos.

    (Original post by Hy~)
    I'm not saying it doesn't do this, but again, consider the situation where 51% of the population vote to kill the other 49%, because it would make the 51% happy. Is this how the government can work? It isn't a choice between democracy and anarchy, by the way. It's not even a choice between democracy, anarchy and dictatorship.
    Yes, basically. The government should have the ability to make that kind of decision. We would hope that it never has to, and there would need to be a hell of a good reason for it, which undoubtedly there never would be. The capacity for that should be there, but the actuality of it would never happen. Finding the line of what they should be able to do is questionable, but i dont think there need to be any limits.
    Here's a question to consider which is complete fantasy, but relevent nevertheless I feel; what if 49% of the population were infected and became 'zombies'? it is unknown whether they are still human somewhere and testing has come back inconclusive. What if there was a way to protect all the remaining humans from harm? surely you'd go for it right?
    Obviously that cannot happen, but how much of a threat to the rest of society does a group need to be to justify eliminating them or protecting the rest? what % of society can be in this group and it still be right to do so?
    Personally I feel that if one group is not harmed by sanctions that protect another group from harm, then it is surely a good thing.

    (Original post by Hy~)
    I have no doubt that those who discriminate against others for any reasons are wrong. Of course the key word in this sentence is "I". I also believe that, ultimately, those who discriminate are only harming themselves. But you can't take away their right to discriminate because there is no end to what rights can be taken.

    Where does the right to "tell people to judge based on what is relevant" come from?
    It's the point. When someone applies for a job, they should be judged for their ability to do that job. People shouldnt be able to refuse to hire someone because of a personal prejudicial opinion.

    (Original post by Hy~)
    Isn't this a bit hypocritical? I'd say that the majority of people support gay rights, black people's rights and many other minorities' rights. The ones who don't support these rights are, in actuality, the minority. Why can't you accept that they'll always be different and, regardless of whether the law is passed or not, won't support gay rights, black people's rights etc?
    If you talk about right, not everything is a right. I don't have the right to go out and shoot people in the street, for example, no matter how much i could want to. Similarly, you don't have the right to refuse employment simply because of what they are and not how capable they are.

    (Original post by Hy~)
    Doubtless, but read above. Why can't you be tolerant of their belief in being intolerant?
    They can believe what they like, thats fine, and not what's under question here. It's when they act upon those opinions in such a way that damages the well being of others in society and interferes with other people that it isnt right anymore. A company manager can dislike gay people or black people or whoeve as much as they like, but they shouldnt be able to refuse to employ them simply because of this. Similarly, a catholic organisation can dislike gay people and believe in the sinfulness of what they do, but they shouldnt refuse to hire them or refuse to help them.

    (Original post by Hy~)
    Ah, so you're agreeing that "equality" is imposed by Harman's bill. Tell me, without using morality, what's the difference between imposing equality and imposing death. Or imposing equality and imposing servitude. Or imposing equality and imposing rape. Or any other thing you find immoral. Tell me, without saying "its right, its good, its wrong, its evil" or any other value judgement, what the difference is between imposing equality and imposing something you think to be evil.
    I admit they are the same type of thing, but they are at different ends of the spectrum, as different as red light and blue light.
    With no government, society has no way to solve conflicts internally or externally, no way to decide upon what happens and why and who gets to do what. If everyone gets to do anything they want, then more conlifcts occur... circling back to the idea that some form of government is necessary due to the fallability of humans.
    If any kind of government is in place, there will always be impositions on people, tax for example. That is the purpose of the government: imposing rules and sanctions for the benefit of society.
    They're not perfect at it, and there are many criticisms of it, but that is what they are trying to do. The difference between imposing equality and imposing death, is that equality is beneficial to the whole of society, even the people who dont want it will be benefitted by it in some way. Death to all, as you would probably admit, is most counter-productive, shall we say, for a society.

    For Kantian ethics, I'd suggest 'Puzzle of Ethics' by Peter Vardy. It includes a nice section on it. but a quick wikipedia search for 'Kantian Ethics' or 'Categorical Imperative' will give you some information too.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajtiesto)
    Totally agree with the pope, well said imo!
    Look at this!!!

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...equality_bill/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spacecam)
    Look at this!!!

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...equality_bill/
    Great news!

    Pope for Prime Minister!!!!:yes:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spacecam)
    Look at this!!!

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...equality_bill/
    This actually makes me feel sick.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Holly Hiskey)
    I thought Christianity is meant to be about spreading love and joy to thy fellow neighbour, not encouraging discrimination towards groups of people? At least he provides a topic of conversation
    oh it is providing you fit a certain way of living, breathing, thinking even your farts must be holy. You must hold to thier view of life and your damned if you break it.

    kinda like hitler with his master race.

    And this pope prooves once more the issues that surround these archaic religions (but hankfully most people dont think this way even if the do class themselves as catholic)
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.