Why Religious Leaders Have Rarely Been Moral Leaders

[Aupmanyav]

I see religious intolerance waning. There was a time when Christian Catholics and Christian Protestants were killing each other. Before that, Christians were killing Jews and Muslims.

Actually, Joe, we never had religious intolerance in the past unlike the Christian/Muslim strife in West. Hindus and Muslims have lived together in peace sharing each others life for centuries. Even in the Indian independence struggle, Muslims participated in equal numbers and laid their lives along with their Hindu bretheren.

Intolerance in India started with first world war, when the Turkish empire was being dismantled. Gandhi, unfortunately, to show his unity with Muslims, joined the pan-Islamic Khilafat movement (1919-22) for restoration of Turkish Caliphate. This one move laid the corner stone of Hindu/Muslim strife because it led to a Muslim uprising in Malabar and killing of thousands of Hindus. Then came the partition. But still, the Hindu Muslim unity holds in India.

 

[Murad]

When your neighbor is brutally murdered, you feel a sense of moral outrage. That's your conscience making a moral judgment that the act was immoral. Conscience is our only moral authority.

That's relative issue and can change with time?
In word war the European communities kill themsilf without any feeling moral outrage, so in specific situation and in different motions this what you sead it's immoral becomes moral.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I see reason's job as the gathering and analyzing facts so that conscience can judge the act right or wrong, fair or unfair. The final judgment in a moral question belongs to conscience.

Then we are in agreement.

Reason has another role. It is used to implement our values, not just gathering facts in order to make moral judgments. For example, we might consider freedom and public safety values that we esteem, and recognize that sometimes, they suggest alternate courses of action. Do have motorcycle helmet laws for safety reasons, or do we allow riders the freedom to choose? Reason may help us decide. If we are willing to absorb the cost of the accidents in terms of the loss of human and non-human resources, we might choose one way.

If we are not, then we need to have policies consistent with that decision, which may be helmet laws, or the willingness to leave uninsured victims at the roadside to their own devices - a not very appealing choice, but one that reason will identify as an option to be considered even if conscience rejects it.

In every case, we are combining facts with value judgments and making decisions. Hopefully, our reasoning is sound and our values empathetic.

 

[joe1776]

That's relative issue and can change with time?
In word war the European communities kill themsilf without any feeling moral outrage, so in specific situation and in different motions this what you sead it's immoral becomes moral.

Your reasoning mind is confusing you by trying to make a moral rule about killing. That's a mistake. You don't need moral rules. Allow your conscience to judge case-by-case.

Nazis attacked and killed their Eastern neighbors because, as a master race, they felt entitled to take their land and industries. What does your conscience tell you about those acts of killing?

Their Eastern neighbors fought back and killed Nazis. How does your conscience feel about those killings?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In moral dilemmas, for example, if two courses of action are available and both feel wrong, it is probably the reasoning function which weighs and chooses the lesser evil because two parts of the brain light up under fMRI when moral dilemmas are being considered.

I don't think reason can make the choice. It can only tell us what is likely to happen if we choose this way versus that. It cannot tell us which is preferable. I'm sure that you're familiar with the is-ought chasm (Hume's Law). Nothing about how things are or could be tells us how they ought to be.

That ism the reasoning faculty cannot tell us which is the lesser of evils. Conscience must decide that, and put reason to the task of making the lesser evil manifest.

This is-ought divide is also the distinction between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is knowing how to get what you want. Wisdom is knowing what you ought to want.

The wise man and fool might have the same IQ. The fool seeks wealth, fame and power. The wise man chooses friendship, love, and a life of moderation, responsibility, loyalty, hard work, and benevolence.

Being equally intelligent, each solves the problem of attaining his goal.

But only one is happy, and therefore wise. They're both good at understanding how the world is, but not at understanding what he ought to want.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What you wrote ^ above ^ makes me think of a book called Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski.
Such political people ( and can include others outside of politics ) see or project others like themselves.......
Even if professing ' belief ' are they really, that to me is why Isaiah 11:3-4 mentions that Jesus will Not judge by the mere appearance to the eyes......

Ponerology, the study of evil, is a fun word, as are so many from religion

Soteriology - study of salvation

Hamartiology - study of sin

Eschatology - study of death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind.

Here's a fun quiz.Match the following:

[1] apostasy
[2] apocryphal
[3] apotheosis
[4] apologetics
[5] apostolic
[6] apocalypse
[7] apophatic

(a) theological defense
(b) desertion of a post or of a religion
(c) elevation to god status
(d) the violent end of the world
(e) related to a missionary or disciple
(f) of doubtful authenticity (scripture)
(g) of or relating to the belief that God can be known to humans only in terms of what He is not (such as `God is unknowable').

Spoiler: answers

[1] apostasy - (b) desertion of a post or of a religion
[2] apocryphal - (f) of doubtful authenticity (scripture)
[3] apotheosis - (c) elevation to god status
[4] apologetics - (a) theological defense
[5] apostolic - (e) related to a missionary or disciple
[6] apocalypse - (d) the violent end of the world
[7] apophatic - (g) of or relating to the belief that God can be known to humans only in terms of what He is not (such as `God is unknowable').

 

[joe1776]

In every case, we are combining facts with value judgments and making decisions. Hopefully, our reasoning is sound and our values empathetic.

I could have been more specific, when I said: "I see reason's job as the gathering and analyzing facts so that conscience can judge the act right or wrong, fair or unfair," I was referring only to moral judgments in specific cases. Public policy decisions are another matter. I agree with your thoughts on those.

 

[joe1776]

I don't think reason can make the choice. It can only tell us what is likely to happen if we choose this way versus that. It cannot tell us which is preferable. I'm sure that you're familiar with the is-ought chasm (Hume's Law). Nothing about how things are or could be tells us how they ought to be.

Here's my reasoning:

The judgments of conscience are intuitive signals which operate on pain and pleasure. When it considers an act wrong, we feel it as an unpleasant sensation. When it isn't wrong, we feel nothing.

In a moral dilemma, when conscience signals that both options feel wrong, it has no way to signal a simple preference. Isn't the weighing of the harm done a simple task for the reasoning faculty?

I understand the ought-is concept but I don't see how it applies.

 

[Augustus]

The Wikipedia timeline credits the English court case, Somerset v Stewart, as the key event in the abolition movement in England. However, the movement was already well underway when that happened. Your claim that The abolitionist movement was driven by Quakers and evangelical Christians. just isn't supported by the facts.

Quakers made up most of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade and were the first to present a petition against the slave trade to the British Parliament. As Dissenters, Quakers were not eligible to become British MPs in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Anglican evangelist William Wilberforce led the parliamentary campaign. Clarkson [Thomas, a church deacon] became the group's most prominent researcher, gathering vast amounts of data and gaining first hand accounts by interviewing sailors and former slaves at British ports such as Bristol, Liverpool and London.

When the key figures were pretty much all Quakers and evangelical Anglicans, then I'd say the facts do support it.

Anyway, the US civil rights movement, the abolitionist movement, anti-apartheid figures like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the liberation theology of the South American Church, the anti-communism of the Polish Church are all examples of religious leaders being moral leaders. There are plenty more examples if you open your eyes to them.

As for your parenthetical gripe: (whatever that term even means), MLK was a moral leader. So, your pointing him out indicates that you weren't as mystified by my use of the term "moral leader" as you pretend to be.

It's just a very subjective term. Someone can be highly moral in regard to one issue and immoral in regard to another, are they still a 'moral leader'? Most people aren't saints, even if they are agents for positive change in one field.

And what it means to be moral is completely dependent on the individual. Terrorists are often driven by morality, just a very different one from you or me. Is morality judged by consequences or intentions also? Many communist activists were driven by empathy and selflessness, but created an awful regime.

I suspect that you have formed your worldview by what you read in the daily media which mostly prints bad news. In order to see trends, I suggest you compare the present to anytime in the distant past.

Steven Pincker is the best source for facts on this based on data but there is other research. For example, Oxford sociologist Manuel Eisner's study persuasively demonstrated a long-term pattern of declining homicide rates across Europe over 800 years.

Making more claims and cherry-picking the evidence won't support your claim that we humans are morally declining. Have you any research to support you?

You suspect very wrongly, and who said anything about declining? I believe history is cyclical, not linear. At times there is progress and other there is regression. It is foolish to think morality only goes in one direction as our human nature is unchanged with the capacity for both good and evil. It is highly irrational to believe than anything that has already happened could not happen again.

Why is Pinker the best source? He uses the highest estimates for all of the old wars (some of which are absurdly high), and then uses the lower end of the estimates for the 20th C ones. Does this seem honest or scientific to you?

If there had been a nuclear war resulting from the Cuban Missile Crisis, even Pinker could not massage the stats in his favour. This war was averted by the actions of 1 man, so humanity's moral progress is based on the actions of a Russian submariner.

There is a massive amount of evidence that normal people will very easily carry out immoral actions is placed in the 'right' circumstances (see 20th C totalitarian regimes).

The 20th C was the most murderous on record, why should anyone believe that this is indicative of our 'better angels'?

 

[sayak83]

Humanity is, and always has been making moral progress. We are treating each other better than at any time in the past. Compare the moral code of today's world to say the Middle Ages.

Arrogance, probably driven by the need to feel superior to others, is the arch troublemaker within us all, varying in degree from mild to severe. When we look for a cause for a moral failing, arrogance should be our prime suspect.

Our religion is better than your religion!
Our nation is better than your nation!
Our race is better than your race!
Our tribe is better than your tribe!

Group pride, thought to be a virtue, is not. We know intuitively that the man extremely proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud if, by some twist of fate, he had been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. He thinks of his groups as wonderful because they're HIS groups and HE'S wonderful. Group pride is disguised arrogance.

When our arrogant nature is satisfied, we gloat. Highly arrogant people often resist change because it feels good to feel superior.

Since two attitudes can't occupy the same space, forming the habit of treating others as equals will automatically displace arrogant attitudes. This has been happening in public policy the world over. People whose ancestors were slaves now have equal rights. Women, homosexuals and minorities are gaining equal rights as well.

The ambition to lead and gain a measure of power and control over others is a symptom of arrogance. Leaders sometimes mean well and sometimes they don't; but we can't, as a general rule, expect them to be moral leaders since most were corrupted in the womb when they inherited an inclination toward arrogance from their parents.

The Abrahamic religions were founded by arrogant leaders who meant well, but they were not moral leaders. They then passed the torch down to men who were just like them. When moral progress has been made on a global scale, religion's leaders have typically lagged behind quoting scripture in protest.

That's how I see it. Do you agree or disagree?

Last I looked Gandhi was equally a Hindu religious leader, Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King were Christian Ministers and Dalai Lama and Thich Nhaht Hanh are Buddhist leaders. So the proposition requires some evidence to back it up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑

I don't think reason can make the choice. It can only tell us what is likely to happen if we choose this way versus that. It cannot tell us which is preferable. I'm sure that you're familiar with the is-ought chasm (Hume's Law). Nothing about how things are or could be tells us how they ought to be.

Here's my reasoning:

The judgments of conscience are intuitive signals which operate on pain and pleasure. When it considers an act wrong, we feel it as an unpleasant sensation. When it isn't wrong, we feel nothing.

My experience is that I get a message that something is right or wrong, not just a message telling me that I am wrong when I am.

The pain and pleasure comes after the action. The conscience either affirms one's choice as being consistent with its internal values, which produces the pleasant sense of having done the right thing, or produces cognitive dissonance - perhaps guilt or shame - when we don't heed our inner voice.

In a moral dilemma, when conscience signals that both options feel wrong, it has no way to signal a simple preference. Isn't the weighing of the harm done a simple task for the reasoning faculty?

I still say that reason cannot help us beyond telling us how things are and could be, but not what we ought to do.

If we have prior experience with this choice, it can remind us of what we did last time and how that turned out. We may decide to test the alternative this time, and create a second memory that may be useful if the dilemma presents itself a third time, at which time, once again, reason can inform us of how things are - choose A and feel mental state 1, or B and 2

If conscience cannot inform us of the right choice, then we must just guess which

I understand the ought-is concept but I don't see how it applies.

I don't know how to rephrase this.

There are two different and independent types of mental activity going on in this process, one by a faculty we call conscience that answers normative questions, and another that solves problems using the senses, memory, and, if we are sufficiently trained in the process of critical thinking, the ability to go turn valid premises and evidence into accurate predictions about how various choices might or will work out.

The first is the "ought" part, the latter the "is" part. We need them both to make rational choices that produce the outcomes that we value. If we don't use reason, however good our values are, we are less likely to get the outcomes that they suggest that we should seek. Assuming that we have healthy consciences, if we don't heed their counsel, we probably aren't making moral choices, and can expect pangs of psychological pain to follow.

It's the skillful and successful interplay of the "is" and "ought" faculties that leads to right behavior and a sense of moral rectitude.

 

[joe1776]

hen the key figures were pretty much all Quakers and evangelical Anglicans, then I'd say the facts do support it.

You have presented evidence that Quakers were involved in 1823. You haven't supported yout claim that the abolition of slavery, which began much earlier, was driven by Quakers and evangelicals.

Anyway, the US civil rights movement, the abolitionist movement, anti-apartheid figures like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the liberation theology of the South American Church, the anti-communism of the Polish Church are all examples of religious leaders being moral leaders. There are plenty more examples if you open your eyes to them.

Desmond Tutu is another exception to my general rule. That makes two, you've mentioned. Communism, the ideas, aren't immoral.

It's just a very subjective term.

You know what a moral leader is: You correctly picked out ML King and Desmond Tutu.

You suspect very wrongly, and who said anything about declining? I believe history is cyclical, not linear. At times there is progress and other there is regression.

What causes this cycle? What causes humanity to roll from good to bad and then back again? You sure your not just being deceived by major events?

Why is Pinker the best source? He uses the highest estimates for all of the old wars (some of which are absurdly high), and then uses the lower end of the estimates for the 20th C ones. Does this seem honest or scientific to you?

I'm not capable of challenging his research, but I'm basing my judgment of him on the favorable reviews of people who are.

If there had been a nuclear war resulting from the Cuban Missile Crisis, even Pinker could not massage the stats in his favour. This war was averted by the actions of 1 man, so humanity's moral progress is based on the actions of a Russian submariner

I doubt that tale. nevertheless it has nothing to do with our topic. The question is about the moral grade of average humans.
.

There is a massive amount of evidence that normal people will very easily carry out immoral actions is placed in the 'right' circumstances (see 20th C totalitarian regimes).

Better weaponry and population growth. You have to adjust for these factors which hide the fact that average humans are making progress.

One disturbed teenager in the USA in 1950 might injure a classmate with a switchblade knife and the incident would be reported on page three of a local paper. His counterpart today, armed with an assault rifle might kill dozens; and video would be seen all around the world the following day. Things seem a lot worse but it was still just one disturbed teenager.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Humans are not better now morally than they have been in the past. Our nature is unchanged. You love to bring up slavery as an example of our moral progress but there millions of slaves throughout the world. There is human trafficking, forced prostitution, narco slavery, sweatshops and so on. Slavery is a huge global industry.

Contemporary slavery - Wikipedia

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As for the OP, it's part of human nature for people to value those of their own groups over others. Tribalism is a part of our evolutionary heritage and it's not going away. Even those claiming to be against it tend to be hypocrites and partake in tribalist behavior. We're animals at the end of the day.

 

[joe1776]

Last I looked Gandhi was equally a Hindu religious leader, Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King were Christian Ministers and Dalai Lama and Thich Nhaht Hanh are Buddhist leaders. So the proposition requires some evidence to back it up.

Gandhi was Hindu but he was not a HIndu leader. The Dalai Lama and Thich Nhaht Hanh were not leaders of the Abrahamic religions which were my topic in the OP.

Only MLK, Jr and Desmond Tutu have been mentioned so far. They are exceptions which proves my general rule..

 

[joe1776]

Humans are not better now morally than they have been in the past. Our nature is unchanged. You love to bring up slavery as an example of our moral progress but there millions of slaves throughout the world. There is human trafficking, forced prostitution, narco slavery, sweatshops and so on. Slavery is a huge global industry.

Contemporary slavery - Wikipedia

So, you won't admit that the abolition of slavery is moral progress until every last vestige of what you choose to define as slavery has been wiped out? Well, I won't try to convince you that you're wrong.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So, you won't admit that the abolition of slavery is moral progress until every last vestige of what you choose to define as slavery has been wiped out? Well, I won't try to convince you that you're wrong.

Laws and reality aren't the same things. Abolishing slavery on paper did not change the fact of its existence. Slavery may be more brutal these days than it was as practiced by the ancients. In other ways, it's much the same.

 

[joe1776]

As for the OP, it's part of human nature for people to value those of their own groups over others. Tribalism is a part of our evolutionary heritage and it's not going away. Even those claiming to be against it tend to be hypocrites and partake in tribalist behavior. We're animals at the end of the day.

A thousand years ago Christians were killing Jews and Muslims. And, for a while, Christian Catholics and Christian Protestants were killing each other. Now, they're getting all loving and ecumenical.

Now, you're going to say that some of that is still going on in Syria, so humanity has made no progress. Like you said we've made no progress on slavery. Right?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A thousand years ago Christians were killing Jews and Muslims. And, for a while, Christian Catholics and Christian Protestants were killing each other. Now, they're getting all loving and ecumenical.

Now, you're going to say that some of that is still going on in Syria, so humanity has made no progress. Like we've made no progress on slavery. Right?

Christians still kill Muslims, Jews kill Muslims and Muslims kill Christians and Jews. Like @Augustus, I also view history as cyclical and reject the myth of progress.

 

[joe1776]

My experience is that I get a message that something is right or wrong, not just a message telling me that I am wrong when I am.

Since we're both human, it's unlikely that your intuitive moral faculty works differently than mine.. I'm not sure what's gone wrong here.

I still say that reason cannot help us beyond telling us how things are and could be, but not what we ought to do.

The Trolley problem is an example of the kind of moral dilemma I meant. Take a look at this example of it. Which option causes the least harm is a simple choice.
Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Your example of a man's choice -- wealth or moral progress -- I see as a choice that can be made by the reasoning mind. Even though one of the options concerns morality, this is not really a moral question because it doesn't involve harm, intent, etc.