Reason is the Most Important Driver of Human Moral Progress?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe that says more about the people than the religious teaching?

Sure.
But a closer imagination of the religious teachings, especially concerning abrahamic religions, reveal a deeply immoral philosophy.

And the religiously influenced "divine command theory", where it is believed that morals are dictated by a god, are inherently bankrupt moral systems. It's a kind of morality that is indistinguishable from psychopathy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know there are some teachings in the Old Testament, but those are not for the Christian people anymore, that belong to the old teaching. When there were other rules.

That's special pleading.
Slavery is immoral. It was immoral then and it is immoral now.
Just because people were to ignorant back then to realise it, doesn't change its barbaric and immoral underpinnings.

As far as I know the teachings for Christians it is only the New Testament that should count, not the whole bible of today. (i could be wrong of course)

The NT is immoral as well. In fact, its entire premise (that we need "saving" by default and that punishing a scapegoat can absolve others of their guild) is one of the most immoral ideas I've ever heared.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Imo, christianity is rotten to its very core and the central tenants thereof pure societal immoral poison.
Sorry if that offends anyone, but it is my honest assessment of the underlying philosophies of this religion. It's not meant to offend. It's just an honest expression of the conclusions that I have reached.

 

[Wandering Monk]

These societies today are vastly more moralistic then back in the day. That is not saying they are "morally perfect" today or whatever, off course.

The only point here, is that the world today has higher moral standards then back in those days.
It's just the way it is.

Back in the day when we had the Old Time Religion life sucked.

 

[Wandering Monk]

That's special pleading.
Slavery is immoral. It was immoral then and it is immoral now.
Just because people were to ignorant back then to realise it, doesn't change its barbaric and immoral underpinnings.



The NT is immoral as well. In fact, its entire premise (that we need "saving" by default and that punishing a scapegoat can absolve others of their guild) is one of the most immoral ideas I've ever heared.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Imo, christianity is rotten to its very core and the central tenants thereof pure societal immoral poison.
Sorry if that offends anyone, but it is my honest assessment of the underlying philosophies of this religion. It's not meant to offend. It's just an honest expression of the conclusions that I have reached.

Paul endorsed slavery. He told Onesimus, the runaway slave of Philemon, a LEADER of the churhc in Collosi, to return to his master.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Just ask yourself this question....

Given the choice, in what society would you want to live, not knowing in advance who you are (in terms of ethnicity, religion or lack thereof, gender, sexual orientation,...):
- today's London, or 500 years ago's London?
- today's California or 300 years ago's California?
- today's US or 70 years ago's US?

I'ld pick today's any day of the week. And I'm guessing you would too.
It wasn't much fun being black and living the US 70 years ago.
It wasn't much fun being a non-christian, or a woman, and live in London 500 years ago.
Etc.

These societies today are vastly more moralistic then back in the day.
That is not saying they are "morally perfect" today or whatever, off course.

The only point here, is that the world today has higher moral standards then back in those days.
It's just the way it is.

Any place any time would be fine to me, I have no attachments to how people treat me, or where I would be when they treat me the way they do.
it is not about how they treat me but how i react to each situation that is experienced.

 

[atanu]

"Reason is the key driver of human moral progress."

EDIT: A more accurate summary of Newberger Goldstein's thesis might be, "Reason deserves the greatest credit for whatever moral progress we have seen and see in the world." Or -- not "reason is the key driver of human moral progress", but rather "reason is the single most important driver of human moral progress."

Comments?

Not really. Pinker claims that the Enlightenment is defined by a “non-negotiable” commitment to reason.

But in A Treatise of Human Nature (1738), Hume wrote: “Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” And Kant’s thesis was “Critique of pure reason”. Schopenhauer proposed that reason was a weak servant of a blind will. Same goes with egalitarianism.

The point is that thinking at that time was much more open and diverse than what Pinker tells us.

In this refreshing video, the wifey — Rebecca Goldstein, appears to have an independent view from her husband, whose views are closer to Scientism.

She says that science can know categories of ontology, except one — the consciousness. She also clarified that for epistemology and moral knowledge philosophy can provide answers.

From this viewpoint of Rebecca, the argument that reason is critical for morality stands out as very reasonable. She is a beautiful mind.

...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You believe people wrote the bible so what are you really saying?

She's talking from the perspective of the religion, in context of someone claiming these are divine rules.
Pretty dishonest twist you tried to make there...

People came up with these immoral teachings.

Yes. They pretty nicely reflect the barbaric state of society of those times. It's what I would expect from such a culture if it would produce such a book.

You want to get rid of a book people wrote so that people can write their own new rules.....

Newsflash: that already happened a long time ago. We live in secular democracies today. Meaning that your biblical rules are irrelevant when it comes to organizing society. We no longer allow slavery - your book does. We no longer allow treating women as secondary citizens - your book does. We no longer persecute homosexuals - your book does.

Etc.

But people wrote the rules you hate what if the new rules are not to your liking or shall we just dispense with human morlaity altogether and make the individual sovereign? Good luck with that.

Today, we have things like universal human rights and secular constitutions.
I'm pretty fine with that. Aren't you?

Of course if their is a God who is the universal sovereign your dilema disappears Gods morality trumps that of man.

No, it doesn't. Morality isn't dictated.
Things aren't moral because a perceived authority declares them so. That's the "morality" of psychopaths. That's for people who lack psychological traits like empathy and who aren't able to distinguish morality from immorality through basic reasoning, and as a result rely on perceived authorities telling them what is right or wrong.

I know all the talking points of your supposed moral outrage at the bible and they are very petty

Petty??
It's "petty" to be against slavery?
It's "petty" to be against treating women as secondary citizens?
It's "petty" to be against discrimination and persecution of homosexuals?
Really?

and answered by any entry level look at the question "Why does God allow evil"

This is not so much about god/the bible "allowing" evil, but rather god/the bible INSTRUCTING evil.

You do realise that all the things you go on about were done by people not by God.

So God didn't inspire the bible?
God is fine with homosexuality?
God isn't fine with slavery?
God isn't fine with treating women as secondary citizens?
God didn't instruct the israelites to go on genocidal and infantacidal sprees?
God didn't instruct Abraham to sacrifice his son?

So the bible can be discarded as it doesn't reflect god's thoughts and ideas?

If christians actually did what the bible told them to do it would be a vastly different world.

Indeed. Among other things, we'ld still have slavery and homosexuals would still be put to death.

Here's a task for you.... Give me an example of atrocious christian behaviour in the first 300 years of christianity.

Witch burnings in Nigeria.
Bishops and popes telling africans that condoms are instruments of the devil (making HIV spread like wildfire)
Exorcisms ending in death
...

I could go on with other stuff, like The Phelps, Timoty McVeigh, Jesus Camp, etc...
But you'll just go for a No True Scottsman fallacy. I can smell it a mile away.

Any murder, war, rape, scandle anything you can find. If it's such a horrible book that inspires evil you should have no trouble filling pages. Although i think you will have a hard time finding anything bad pre 300ce. That was when politics and the world you support got its hands on the faith and did what men do... Any immorality comes from the political worldly influence of people not following the spirit of the religion.
If you think that the apostles of christ would have countanenced something like the crusades or any other number of evils then you are fearfully misinformed.

LUCKILY, people in the west who call themselves christians adhere to a secular humanistic morality which is vastly superior to the morality exhibited in the bible. They cherry pick and pretend that the immoral bits aren't there or "don't count anymore". But this is off course a rather recent development, in the big scheme of things. Which is why you said "in the last 300 years" and NOT "in the last 2000 years".

The moral progress of the past centuries, is entirely thanks to the enlightment age and the rise of humanism and secularism.

If anything, this progress happened in spite of christianity.
Because christianity has been dragged into the 21st century kicking and screaming.
In fact, they still are kicking and screaming concerning various subjects. Like homosexuality, for example. Or sex between two consenting adults who aren't married. Etc.

 

[England my lionheart]

Although there was an interesting comment on the YouTube page of this video:

It's a shame this dialogue ignores the current monstrosities of humankind - For the first time in history, we have the ability to live sustainably, end world hunger, improve literacy and numeracy rates globally, greatly reduce disease and subsequently save millions of lives per year. Instead we what? We create a system to live by which works for itself and allows us to say "That's just how the world works". We've not evolved, we've just changed the nature of our barbarism and categorised it as the nature of capitalism.

Do you think birth control would help with that?,reason would probably say yes and say some religions are morally wrong for not allowing it whereas some religions see it the other way round.

 

[Vouthon]

Let me humbly ask. How does reason extend empathy? And if indeed reason extends empathy, can it really lead to the golden rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", in the face of crisis when protection/advancement of ego-self militates against the golden rule?
...

Well, I was quoting our friend Sunstone at that point.

I'm not convinced it "extends empathy" so to speak, in the sense of making us feel more compassion for someone, but I do believe it can be very conducive, arguably critical, to moral evaluations - once the initial emotional response has come and we then 'reflect' on how xyz event or person has made us "feel".

Sometimes, reason can limit or pacify an emotional response for good effect.

On other occasions, it can do quite the contrary - as the Stoic example I raised from Seneca earlier on illustrates.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Any place any time would be fine to me

No, it wouldn't. Don't lie.

You would not want to live as a jew in Germany in 1939
You would not want to live as a black person in the US of 1870
You would not want to live as a non-christian in medieval London.

If you claim otherwise, I'm going to have to assume that you are either extremely ignorant on how it was like back then, or that you are simply being dishonest just to not acknowledge the point.

, I have no attachments to how people treat me, or where I would be when they treat me the way they do.

Off course you do.......
Sorry I can't take your comments seriously.

Go live as a black person in 1870 and repeat that. Seriously.

it is not about how they treat me but how i react to each situation that is experienced.

Reacting in a way that doesn't please your environment there would result in lashes, burn marks, hanging, being burned at the stake,... etc etc. Or even worse then that etc etc. They were quite imaginative back then you know....

Maybe you should step out of your little bubble of secular democratic comfort and take a look at the rest of the world and how things actually were up until the quite recent past.

 

[Spirit of Light]

No, it wouldn't. Don't lie.

You would not want to live as a jew in Germany in 1939
You would not want to live as a black person in the US of 1870
You would not want to live as a non-christian in medieval London.

If you claim otherwise, I'm going to have to assume that you are either extremely ignorant on how it was like back then, or that you are simply being dishonest just to not acknowledge the point.




Off course you do.......
Sorry I can't take your comments seriously.

Go live as a black person in 1870 and repeat that. Seriously.



Reacting in a way that doesn't please your environment there would result in lashes, burn marks, hanging, being burned at the stake,... etc etc. Or even worse then that etc etc. They were quite imaginative back then you know....

Maybe you should step out of your little bubble of secular democratic comfort and take a look at the rest of the world and how things actually were up until the quite recent past.

If you do not believe what I say, that is ok. But i have no attachments toward how others treat me. And when fear of death has been let go of there is no more to be afraid of. So no I do not fear experiencing suffering.

About traveling, i have been to almost every country you would not travel to because it is suffering there. so no I do not fear it. and I have compassion toward every living being also those who live in daily suffering every day.
One can not fully understand suffering before one has been there oneself, and I been there with personal suffering most of my life, even I live in a so-called developed country, I had to struggle to eat something each day because I did not have money to buy food.
I were bullied all my childhood every day for more than 12 years. so I know about suffering.

But out of cultivation of Buddhism I understood that the suffering I experienced was a result of my own lack of understanding of my past, at the moment I understood this, the situations did not disappear but the suffering did.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you do not believe what I say, that is ok.

No, I really don't believe you when you say that you wouldn't mind being a black slave, a jewish person in the line of fire during holocaust times, etc.

I were bullied all my childhood every day for more than 12 years. so I know about suffering.

yeah, that's the same...

But out of cultivation of Buddhism I understood that the suffering I experienced was a result of my own lack of understanding of my past, at the moment I understood this, the situations did not disappear but the suffering did.

Uhu, uhu.

 

[Spirit of Light]

No, I really don't believe you when you say that you wouldn't mind being a black slave, a jewish person in the line of fire during holocaust times, etc.



yeah, that's the same...



Uhu, uhu.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

not people suddenly realising slavery was wrong.

Slavery is mostly abolished, most people think it morally wrong, that is an example of moral progress.

hence their increasing rejection in many parts of the modern world.

And yet some non-western cultures have adopted them or something similar.

We might have more options these days that allow us greater leeway in responding to events in less violent manners, but when push comes to shove we'll do what we deem necessary.

That doesn't seem as much a concern when crime rates have been steadily declining for two decades now.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The morality based upon logic and reason are shown in my profile below.

That's not morality, it's your personal hangups about stuff rusty is none of your business of someone is doing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Demands you execution...... .. that's a strange way to take it.

As an apostate and someone who formerly worshiped Jehovah and then worshiped other gods, Jehovah wants me dead and he commanded execution in the Bible.

So you boycott all products and luxuries provided by the off shoring of your slavery because it is morally intolerable. Or do you NOT LOOK at the world you live in so you can fool yourself that you are against the exploitation of the poor while living off their sweat.

So many assumptions, so typically Christian. Care to try again without putting words in my mouth?

 

[Moz]

She's talking from the perspective of the religion, in context of someone claiming these are divine rules.
Pretty dishonest twist you tried to make there...



Yes. They pretty nicely reflect the barbaric state of society of those times. It's what I would expect from such a culture if it would produce such a book.




Newsflash: that already happened a long time ago. We live in secular democracies today. Meaning that your biblical rules are irrelevant when it comes to organizing society. We no longer allow slavery - your book does. We no longer allow treating women as secondary citizens - your book does. We no longer persecute homosexuals - your book does.

Etc.




Today, we have things like universal human rights and secular constitutions.
I'm pretty fine with that. Aren't you?







Things aren't moral because a perceived authority declares them so. That's the "morality" of psychopaths. That's for people who lack psychological traits like empathy and who aren't able to distinguish morality from immorality through basic reasoning, and as a result rely on perceived authorities telling them what is right or wrong.




Petty??
It's "petty" to be against slavery?
It's "petty" to be against treating women as secondary citizens?
It's "petty" to be against discrimination and persecution of homosexuals?
Really?



This is not so much about god/the bible "allowing" evil, but rather god/the bible INSTRUCTING evil.



So God didn't inspire the bible?
God is fine with homosexuality?
God isn't fine with slavery?
God isn't fine with treating women as secondary citizens?
God didn't instruct the israelites to go on genocidal and infantacidal sprees?
God didn't instruct Abraham to sacrifice his son?

So the bible can be discarded as it doesn't reflect god's thoughts and ideas?



Indeed. Among other things, we'ld still have slavery and homosexuals would still be put to death.




Witch burnings in Nigeria.
Bishops and popes telling africans that condoms are instruments of the devil (making HIV spread like wildfire)
Exorcisms ending in death
...

I could go on with other stuff, like The Phelps, Timoty McVeigh, Jesus Camp, etc...
But you'll just go for a No True Scottsman fallacy. I can smell it a mile away.



LUCKILY, people in the west who call themselves christians adhere to a secular humanistic morality which is vastly superior to the morality exhibited in the bible. They cherry pick and pretend that the immoral bits aren't there or "don't count anymore". But this is off course a rather recent development, in the big scheme of things. Which is why you said "in the last 300 years" and NOT "in the last 2000 years".

The moral progress of the past centuries, is entirely thanks to the enlightment age and the rise of humanism and secularism.

If anything, this progress happened in spite of christianity.
Because christianity has been dragged into the 21st century kicking and screaming.
In fact, they still are kicking and screaming concerning various subjects. Like homosexuality, for example. Or sex between two consenting adults who aren't married. Etc.

Hi
Today, we have things like universal human rights and secular constitutions.
I'm pretty fine with that. Aren't you?
We ....who the hell is we. The Chinese, Indian and middle eastern world have a very different set of beliefs....
If their rules actually end up winning, they do have the numbers and the west is getting soft, you will be fine with what the majority of humanity decides on yes?
...................................................
No, it doesn't. Morality isn't dictated. ,
Of course it is. Your declaration of human rights you just used is a DICTATE. For any morality to work it has been embraced by the majority YES?
You want REASON to dictate morals. I think you lot will find just as many disagreements on reason as we have disagreements on religion... you will solve nothing.
OH........ can wee each have a personal morality moulded by our own viewpoint?. ....You will solve nothing.
....................................................

It's "petty" to be against slavery?
This is not so much about god/the bible "allowing" evil, but rather god/the bible INSTRUCTING evil.
I thought you implied that you knew something about Bronze age culture.... well if you had any idea what you are talking about you would know that the the laws on slavery that you are so misunderstanding were written the 1500's bce.......... Mass slavery was ALREADY over a thousand years old, by the Bible chronology., when the Israelites got involved in the business of nation building...... their opponents were already slave states and the laws of war had already been set.

With the christians...... slavery was Roman Law they had no choice but to manage themselves within the system that they lived in. Jesus could not declare slavery illegal across the world he was a poor carpenter. If they had been in South Africa in the 1980's then they would have had to negotiate a way to live with aparthied.

OK... you must know a little about Jesus Christ. Do you really think that the Jesus who is revealed in the Bible would be a slave beating slave raping monster. His followers were to follow HIS example.
.......................................................................
Which is why you said "in the last 300 years" and NOT "in the last 2000 years".

You misread what i had said......... I referred to the FIRST 300 years. If you actually think about things a bit you would see where the TROUBLE enters the story.

For the first Three Centuries we have none of the crap you rant about as the horrors of christianity existed. When the Roman state took over the religion to use it as a binding agent for the Empire it used rationalist greek and nationalist philosophies to twist the scriptures into the monster that emerged. Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo are two examples of men who changed the religion into what you hate today. It was men like them who introduced the war and political rubbish into the religion.

Do you really think that the political, warmongering, powerhungry, murderous monster that is christendom is a reflection of what Jesus Christ is recorded as teaching in the Bible.
......................................................

It was when 'Imperial Christianity" began using the "rational approach" in working out what they should do to consolidate power that the rot started. Ambrose used the greek logic he was trained in to come to the rational decision that the Church was above the state. His stoush with Thedosius brings in the church /state battle that caused millions of deaths. Augustine, afraid of the Hunnic, Gothic and Vandal rise, uses his greek rational thought, NOT THE BIBLE to devise Just War Theory.... millions and millions dead.

From 33ce to the early 300'"s ce their existed a Christianity that was PURE and subject to none of the accusations that you throw around. It was when HUMAN rational philosophy began to mix with the original teaching that trouble began. Just War Theory, the theory that buried true christianity and the worst idea ever expounded by mankind is still undergirded by the rationalist arguement.
..............................................................
Peace

 

[MonkeyFire]

As long as the progress of ethics doesn't take forever.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you think birth control would help with that?,reason would probably say yes and say some religions are morally wrong for not allowing it whereas some religions see it the other way round.

Birth control would probably work wonders. Religion says "be fruitful and multiply," but on the other hand, they might also argue that people should exercise self-control rather than use birth control.

I guess that could be another topic - at least in terms of human sexuality and its relationship to reason and logic. For example, parents, teachers, and other adults might try to reason with teenagers to explain why it's better to wait until they're adults to have sex (or until they're married). Or, one might try to use reason to persuade people that it's not a good idea to have more kids than one can adequately support.

 

[Stevicus]

Just ask yourself this question....

Given the choice, in what society would you want to live, not knowing in advance who you are (in terms of ethnicity, religion or lack thereof, gender, sexual orientation,...):
- today's London, or 500 years ago's London?
- today's California or 300 years ago's California?
- today's US or 70 years ago's US?

I know you didn't direct this question to me, but another factor which makes comparisons like this difficult is the level of scientific and technological advancement which is the real gamechanger, in my view.

For example, 300 years ago in California (1719), the Spanish didn't have much there in terms of permanent settlements. I think most of it was still pretty much under the control of indigenous Natives, but I don't remember which tribes. Some may have been more accepting of outsiders than others, although just trying to survive would be difficult for any random person popping in from the 21st century.

But that might be part of the appeal of the past. The idea of going to a land virtually untouched by civilization and apparently pristine. Not to mention being virtually free of any real governmental control, if only because they'd be so far away. It's just man vs. nature in the raw, kind of like Robert Redford in Jeremiah Johnson.