Should Religion ever motivate a person to be cruel?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're quite right. And I wish that we didn't. Governments validating "religion" merely serves to enshrine particular notions of what religion is, thus it hardly serves all religions equally, much less irreligion.

I think it's best to cut out proxy measures whenever possible. For instance, if we want our policies around charities to maximize societal good, then we should base charitable status on societal good directly instead of basing it on religiosity, assuming that religiosity translates into societal good.

This works - and improves things - even if we assume that religiosity does translate into societal good the vast majority of the time.

... but since I don't think that preferential treatment of religion is going away any time soon, we're going to have to keep on deciding which religions are valid and which aren't... every time someone asks to wear their hijab, turban, or colander for their driver's license photo.

 

[McBell]

Well I guess one man's 'cruelty' is another's 'the end justifies the mean'

Would you be able to present an example?
I ask because everyone I know of who made the claim "the end justifies the means" did so in an attempt to justify their knowingly being "cruel".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My question is- is this a form of religion worth having?

No, it isn't, and shame on anyone who uses their religion as an excuse to be cruel.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

True. A question I have then, is what purpose does passing judgements like this serve? What is the point of doing it? People are going to do what they do regardless of any judgements passed by outsiders, so what purpose does passing judgement serve? What does it facilitate?

Injustice exists, and we can either challenge it or not. If nobody challenges injustice then it will just continue.

 

[George-ananda]

Would you be able to present an example?
I ask because everyone I know of who made the claim "the end justifies the means" did so in an attempt to justify their knowingly being "cruel".

An example would be willingly performing a military operation that will result in a peacefully sleeping German enemy soldier in WW II being burned alive. The attackerbelieves he has a religious obligation to oppose evil regimes and believes the cruelty of burning a man alive is justified (i.e. 'the end justifies the means').

 

[Quintessence]

Injustice exists, and we can either challenge it or not. If nobody challenges injustice then it will just continue.

This is true.

It is also true that when we challenge perceived injustice, those who we challenge are going to perceive our behaviors as unjust. It's a vicious cycle one way or another.

 

[McBell]

An example would be willingly performing a military operation that will result in a peacefully sleeping German enemy soldier in WW II being burned alive. The attackerbelieves he has a religious obligation to oppose evil regimes and believes the cruelty of burning a man alive is justified (i.e. 'the end justifies the means').

but the attacker still sees his burning the enemy as being cruel...

One mans junk is another mans treasure indicates that two people look at an object and while ones sees junk the other sees treasure.

One mans cruel is another mans the ends justify the means does not seem to fit the same structure because the man who sees the ends justify the means still understands his ends is cruel.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

We need to be careful when assuming what religion "should" or "shouldn't" do, especially when it relates to abstract and largely subjective criteria such as cruelty. It is a common perception (at least in the west) that "real religion" should teach all the positive stuff, and any of the negative stuff isn't "real religion". It's a sentiment I have seen echoed by many people, religious and irreligious included, and it reminds me of when individuals claim "So-and-so person/group are not 'real' Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/Buddhists/etc." purely on the basis that they do not practice the particular framework of that belief supported by the speaker - even if the speaker isn't even a member of that religion. Religion is not under any requirement to teach any particular ideological position. It isn't inherently peaceful, or just. Nor is it necessarily inherently violent or unjust. Religions are frameworks that are set up to define the moral and ideological barriers, regardless of whether or not those barrier encroach on the moral or ideological sensibilities of others.

Cruelty itself is far too subjective a measure to use to judge religion from. For example, "spare the rod spoil the child" is seen as a cruel moral lesson by many, but to many others allowing the child to be raised not in accordance with Biblical teachings is far more cruel, because they believe it would condemn that child to hell. On a personal level, I find the very concept of hell and the idea that almost anyone deserves to be sent there to be inherently cruel, and yet I have many close personal friends who not only believe in hell, but (reluctantly, in most cases) believe I am destined to end up there - and even some who openly believe I deserve it.

All fair points. I get what you're saying. I suppose I just wonder if religion couldn't evolve or be shaped by society. I think in some ways the definition of religion has already had to evolve, because if we say for example that Christianity teaches blank, we can't very well say that without stepping on the toes of some Christians.

 

[McBell]

All fair points. I get what you're saying. I suppose I just wonder if religion couldn't evolve or be shaped by society. I think in some ways the definition of religion has already had to evolve, because if we say for example that Christianity teaches blank, we can't very well say that without stepping on the toes of some Christians.

Isn't that like saying math teaches pi times area squared and someone else whining that general math does not teach any such thing?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Isn't that like saying math teaches pi times area squared and someone else whining that general math does not teach any such thing?

Perhaps, though I'm afraid I'm no good at math, so I'm a little confused (heh)

 

[George-ananda]

but the attacker still sees his burning the enemy as being cruel...

Agreed.....cruel but for the best

One mans junk is another mans treasure indicates that two people look at an object and while ones sees junk the other sees treasure.

I understand that.

One mans cruel is another mans the ends justify the means does not seem to fit the same structure because the man who sees the ends justify the means still understands his ends is cruel.

No, he see his ends (defeating the enemy army) as being for the best

 

[McBell]

No, he see his ends (defeating the enemy army) as being for the best

yes he does.
But the only reason he feels the need to justify it with "the end justifies the means" is because he understands it is cruel....

 

[George-ananda]

yes he does.
But the only reason he feels the need to justify it with "the end justifies the means" is because he understands it is cruel....

OK, so what are you disagreeing with me on then?

 

[Thana]

I guess this is an issue I have with more fundamentalist forms of belief, is that I often see opposition to other worldviews and groups that could be called cruel or hateful.

I guess a good example of this is some Christians supporting ex-gay conversion therapy for teens and kids, when such 'therapies' are known to use excessive methods like induced vomiting or hitting.

My question is- is this a form of religion worth having? Is this valid? Is this a true and proper expression of religious faith?

Your thoughts...

Cruelty is, like most things, relative. I know in this thread you've suggested that there's a universal idea of what is cruel, But I disagree. For example there is a parenting method in which you let your baby cry instead of attending them. Some people would consider it cruel, others would consider it healthy.

And you can dislike something and disagree with something without feeling it necessary to abolish it. Honestly, you're condeming people for projecting their ideals on to the world and yet it's the exact same thing you're doing.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Cruelty is, like most things, relative. I know in this thread you've suggested that there's a universal idea of what is cruel, But I disagree. For example there is a parenting method in which you let your baby cry instead of attending them. Some people would consider it cruel, others would consider it healthy.

And you can dislike something and disagree with something without feeling it necessary to abolish it. Honestly, you're condeming people for projecting their ideals on to the world and yet it's the exact same thing you're doing.

I think of it this way: Does the notion that letting a baby cry is healthy change that the baby might really be suffering and have a real problem? That is unperceived inflicting of harm.

And while it is true that one can dislike or disagree with something without wanting to abolish it- why shouldn't people want to abolish things that harm others? Let's say we were speaking defense of a traditional rape culture. Is a person to be condemned or spit at for wanting that abolished?

 

[McBell]

OK, so what are you disagreeing with me on then?

I cannot disagree (or agree) with you until I understand what you mean.

One mans trash is another mans treasure is about two persons who see opposite things in the same object.

I do not understand how it applies to one mans cruel is another mans justify the means...
The one justifing the means is not seeing the opposite of cruel.
He understands it is cruel and is trying to justify his cruelty.

 

[George-ananda]

I do not understand how it applies to one mans cruel is another mans justify the means...

Here's what it means. One person sees a cruel act and calls it cruel. Another person sees the same act and knows the act is cruel but he thinks the cruel act is justified by the need to attain a greater good. So ultimately the second person does not think the person that committed the act is cruel if he did it with the ultimate good in mind.

So the first person would call the perpetrator cruel while the second person would say he is not cruel as 'the ends justify the means'.

 

[leibowde84]

I guess this is an issue I have with more fundamentalist forms of belief, is that I often see opposition to other worldviews and groups that could be called cruel or hateful.

I guess a good example of this is some Christians supporting ex-gay conversion therapy for teens and kids, when such 'therapies' are known to use excessive methods like induced vomiting or hitting.

My question is- is this a form of religion worth having? Is this valid? Is this a true and proper expression of religious faith?

Your thoughts...

Imho, practices like this have more to do with self aggrandizement than anything else. People who aren't happy with their own lives/actions/mistakes/financial state tend to judge others and use religion to legitimize it in order to make themselves feel superior. It's just like how pedophiles in prison get the worst beatings. Murderers can at least say that they are better than pedophiles because they didn't hurt children, etc.

 

[JustWondering]

There pretty much is near universal agreement; but many will argue it is sometimes necessary to be temporarily cruel to further a greater good.

Someone saying they're doing something for the "greater good" is a blatant red flag that they know they're doing something messed up and are just trying to justify it. For a good example of this, watch Hot Fuzz.

 

[George-ananda]

Someone saying they're doing something for the "greater good" is a blatant red flag that they know they're doing something messed up and are just trying to justify it.

Not always, consider what cruelty has to be done in a just war.