Civic Duty in Regards to Religion or Humanity

[Fool]

if a religion, or belief system promotes loves is it more important to promote one's religion as a civic duty, or is it more important to promote love for humanity?


example: is it more important to promotes one beliefs of personal rights to abstain from getting a covid vaccination vs getting a covid vaccine which would not only increase protection for self but for other's as well?

 

[Valjean]

Religious law generally originated as rules and recommendations to maintain the conventions of a particular society.
Trying to impose what works for one tribe, in one place, at a particular time, with a particular economy; on a completely different society, can be problematic.

 

[Fool]

Religious law generally originated as rules and recommendations to maintain the conventions of a particular society.
Trying to impose what works for one tribe, in one place, at a particular time, with a particular economy; on a completely different society, can be problematic.

love is universal. everyone wants to be loved but not everyone is loving towards other as self.

 

[Nakosis]

if a religion, or belief system promotes loves, is it more important to promote one's religion as a civic duty, or is it more important to promote love for humanity?


example: is it more important to promotes one beliefs of personal rights to abstain from getting a covid vaccination vs getting a covid vaccine which would not only increase protection for self but for other's as well?

The majority of beliefs systems I've encounter promote self-improvement or some form of self salvation.
Some promote a love of God. Doesn't seem very practical wrt civic duties.
Civic duties, I think would require us to step outside our need to love or be loved.

If there were something we loved doing it wouldn't be a duty.

 

[Fool]

The majority of beliefs systems I've encounter promote self-improvement or some form of self salvation.
Some promote a love of God. Doesn't seem very practical wrt civic duties.
Civic duties, I think would require us to step outside our need to love or be loved.

If there were something we loved doing it wouldn't be a duty.

most recognized religions hold to the law of reciprocity


The Golden Rule is Common to All Religions - Norman Rockwell Museum - The Home for American Illustration

https://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

 

[Valjean]

love is universal. everyone wants to be loved but not everyone is loving towards other as self.

What's this have to do with civic duty or religious law? It's just a claim that something you're calling love is universal; that everyone wants it, but that not everyone gives it.

 

[Nakosis]

most recognized religions hold to the law of reciprocity


The Golden Rule is Common to All Religions - Norman Rockwell Museum - The Home for American Illustration

https://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

But the question is about love, not reciprocity.

There is things a need to do around the house. I don't like doing them but it makes everyone's life easier, including mine if they are done.
So everyone does their share in doing the things that need to be done some one individual isn't left doing it all.

Why do I share in this? To promote happiness I suppose. Happy people are more fun to hang out with.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

if a religion, or belief system promotes loves is it more important to promote one's religion as a civic duty, or is it more important to promote love for humanity?


example: is it more important to promotes one beliefs of personal rights to abstain from getting a covid vaccination vs getting a covid vaccine which would not only increase protection for self but for other's as well?

I believe each person has their own morals and practices to protect themselves and others from catching viruses. I don't believe a group is immoral if they choose a way not supported by the majority. Not siding with the majority doesn't mean they don't care and it's pushes a fallacy and dichotomy to think otherwise. I'd assume religions that don't have that dichotomy would think likewise but I think it's individual.

 

[Valjean]

I believe each person has their own morals and practices to protect themselves and others from catching viruses. I don't believe a group is immoral if they choose a way not supported by the majority. Not siding with the majority doesn't mean they don't care and it's pushes a fallacy and dichotomy to think otherwise I'd assume religions that don't have that dichotomy would think likewise but I think it's individual.

So there's no universal principle underlying moral behavior? Everyone has their own morality, everyone just does as he wills and none may call it immoral?

 

[Alienistic]

if a religion, or belief system promotes loves is it more important to promote one's religion as a civic duty, or is it more important to promote love for humanity?


example: is it more important to promotes one beliefs of personal rights to abstain from getting a covid vaccination vs getting a covid vaccine which would not only increase protection for self but for other's as well?

I don’t think that all people wish to be so selfless that they are just a blank state of nothing just catering to, being obedient to, listening to, being submissive to what other selves want from them or to do.

This example gives the impression of guilt tripping and bad selfishness in order to get other selves to fit into a particular “selfless paradigm.”

“If you don’t do such and such, you’re not being selfless and loving your neighbor.”

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

if a religion, or belief system promotes loves is it more important to promote one's religion as a civic duty, or is it more important to promote love for humanity?


example: is it more important to promotes one beliefs of personal rights to abstain from getting a covid vaccination vs getting a covid vaccine which would not only increase protection for self but for other's as well?

Promote Love

If your religion has any value, it will be evident from your “fruit”

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So there's no universal principle underlying moral behavior? Everyone has their own morality, everyone just does as he wills and none may call it immoral?

Exactly.

Morality is by culture. For example, western cultures (not just US) have more individualism approach. We contribute to help others by our individual skills. Some other cultures pitch in together and do for others as a joint effort.

It depends on the individual how much individualism influences them. For example, one person may sacrifice their life for a country. Another would not but for their children.

No one should belittle a person for not fighting for they're country. Doesn't mean they dont care, just fighting isn't their thing.

If you get the analogy?

 

[Valjean]

Promote Love

If your religion has any value, it will be evident from your “fruit”

All well and good, but pretty much everyone likes love; everyone speaks well of it, but we still see exploitation, violence on the streets, and social services cut to the bone, plus everywhere we see war and strife; tribe on tribe. This is bad fruit.

Everyone loves his friends, but extending moral consideration beyond one's own, tribal, status community is an unnatural thing. Few are psychologically wired for this. We still have the brains of competitive, tribal, plains apes.
We delight in war, we actually honor the military, and when we can't have our own skirmishes, we invent vicarious tribal skirmishes in the form of team sports for us to enjoy.

You cannot have both love and a military. You cannot have a modern, civilized world and still promote tribalism -- ie: patriotism, nationalism &c. Your moral duty to your your own status community is no different from your duty to a Pakistani, Indonesian, or Russian.

Our nature is dangerous. We need to "know ourselves," and actively suppress it.

-- end of rant.

 

[Valjean]

.

Exactly.

Morality is by culture. For example, western cultures (not just US) have more individualism approach. We contribute to help others by our individual skills. Some other cultures pitch in together and do for others as a joint effort.

It depends on the individual how much individualism influences them. For example, one person may sacrifice their life or a country. Another would not but for their children.

No one should belittle a person fir not fighting for they're country. Doesn't mean they do t care, just fighting isn't their thing.

If you get the analogy?

Good points. Morality is a social construct, involving fairness, altruism, and promoting tribal interests, but ramping this up to supra-Dunbar populations is difficult and unnatural. It requires effort and a more global awareness.

That's one of the reasons societies institute laws; to force people to suppress their natural, extra-tribal aggression and moral indifference, and to coöperate for the greater good.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

if a religion, or belief system promotes loves is it more important to promote one's religion as a civic duty, or is it more important to promote love for humanity?

example: is it more important to promotes one beliefs of personal rights to abstain from getting a covid vaccination vs getting a covid vaccine which would not only increase protection for self but for other's as well?

Dear Fool

I am not certain I understand what a person’s view on covid vaccines has got to do with their religion but - religion or not - I don’t think one may force anyone to inject anything against their will.

That said, if I for example do not wish to take immunisation against yellow fever, that’s my choice but it does mean that I’ll have to refrain from going to countries that require that I be immunised against yellow fever, obviously.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Unveiled Artist]

.
Good points. Morality is a social construct, involving fairness, altruism, and promoting tribal interests, but ramping this up to supra-Dunbar populations is difficult and unnatural. It requires effort and a more global awareness.

That's one of the reasons societies institute laws; to force people to suppress their natural, extra-tribal aggression and moral indifference, and to coöperate for the greater good.

I think people would do so without the coercion with better representation of both sides equally.

Not everyone just say I'll save the world because of hundreds of deaths. Something big like this carries some long forethought. Force would just exacerbate the situation.

I mean a maybe more people are motivated by hearing repeated numbers of deaths highlighted by media. Suffering as an incentive. Or just stories about the "enemy" so they won't be one of them.

Just not all people fall for it. It really takes a lot of building trust for some to compromise their health in a threat "some" people don't see-in respects of how they would spread the virus.

Without human contact the virus can't spread. Why would this person show effort to save the world (if individualist) if he isn't part of the problem and with rate chance of being the victim of it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

if a religion, or belief system promotes loves is it more important to promote one's religion as a civic duty, or is it more important to promote love for humanity?

"Promote one's religion"... do you mean proselytize?

If so, that's generally unethical and incompatible with love.

example: is it more important to promotes one beliefs of personal rights to abstain from getting a covid vaccination vs getting a covid vaccine which would not only increase protection for self but for other's as well?

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm also not sure what they have to do with your first question.

 

[Valjean]

I think people would do so without the coercion with better representation of both sides equally.

Not everyone just say I'll save the world because of hundreds of deaths. Something big like this carries some long forethought. Force would just exacerbate the situation.

Exacerbate what situation?
Do you favor anarchy, ie: no coercive regulations?
Given that humans are not naturally social beyond their own tribe, what would prevent societal breakdown if laws regulating social behavior were eliminated?

Without human contact the virus can't spread. Why would this person show effort to save the world (if individualist) if he isn't part of the problem and with rate chance of being the victim of it?

The reason Covid spreads at all is individualism and the belief of potentially infected individuals that "I'm not part of the problem."

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

All well and good, but pretty much everyone likes love; everyone speaks well of it, but we still see exploitation, violence on the streets, and social services cut to the bone, plus everywhere we see war and strife; tribe on tribe. This is bad fruit.

Everyone loves his friends, but extending moral consideration beyond one's own, tribal, status community is an unnatural thing. Few are psychologically wired for this. We still have the brains of competitive, tribal, plains apes.
We delight in war, we actually honor the military, and when we can't have our own skirmishes, we invent vicarious tribal skirmishes in the form of team sports for us to enjoy.

You cannot have both love and a military. You cannot have a modern, civilized world and still promote tribalism -- ie: patriotism, nationalism &c. Your moral duty to your your own status community is no different from your duty to a Pakistani, Indonesian, or Russian.

Our nature is dangerous. We need to "know ourselves," and actively suppress it.

-- end of rant.

Very nice rant.
I liked it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Exacerbate what situation?
Do you favor anarchy, ie: no coercive regulations?
Given that humans are not naturally social beyond their own tribe, what would prevent societal breakdown if laws regulating social behavior were eliminated?

Oh. Force is counterproductive and makes the plan to save humanity quite worse. It's a catch-22 to solve in my opinion, but, well.

No. I like authority that works with the people not authority that defines a person's rights; I like democracy.

I don't understand the second question. Can you give an example of laws of social behavior?

The reason Covid spreads at all is individualism and the belief of potentially infected individuals that "I'm not part of the problem."

It's a cultural thing. Individualism isn't bad in itself. When you give people the right to help others its more beneficial than telling them what to do. The method of execution is the problem not the individualism. It's like going into a meeting and instead of asking your employees how will they contribute you tell them what they would do. In that sense, when someone challenges that authority's decisions it becomes a problem. Individualism encourages that challenge. The problem is individualism and coercion don't work together. I know the goal is to save people from dying by keeping yourself from being contagious but people just have different values.

Take censorship on social media, media itself, government, and other. An individualist would want to know all the facts to decide for him or herself. Others don't mind decisions made for them. We're just different.