Tag Archives: ethics

Moral’s low watermark

Posted on by

When discussing the obvious shortcomings of biblical morals (slavery, misogyny, homophobia, genocide), I often hear a peculiar argument, one that never sat well with me:

‘you have to understand that biblical morals were meant for the people at that time’.

That argument is peculiar for multiple reasons:
First, it is a tacit admission that the morals as written in the bible aren’t up to today’s standards, and should, therefore, not be used today.

But underlying this is a much bigger issue. Unfortunately, most people are caught up in their biblical history; we often don’t realize that we can’t see the forest for the trees:

According to the bible, God made us. But if he made us, why did he make us the morally backward people we where then? After all, we were able to improve to the point we are today. He could have saved us a lot of suffering, had he poofed us into existence with the morals and ethics we have today.

Yet he didn’t.

Why not? And why make the situation even worse at some arbitrary point in time and encumber us with written rules that from that point on forward were retarding moral progress? If God had wanted us to be moral, shouldn’t he have used the bible to proscribed advanced morals, instead of the de-facto barbaric standards of the time?

Since all we got were primitive morals, that only leaves one conclusion: when he gave us the ten commandments, God thought that we were nearing the apex of morality; that apex was his own moral standard.

If you argue that biblical morals have to be interpreted in the context of time you therefore also argue that god’s morals represent the low watermark of human morals; that we have long surpassed him.

Achmed the dead killer question

Posted on by

Achmed the Dead Terrorist is an incredibly funny routine by world-famous ventriloquist Jeff Dunham. Achmed’s catchline is ‘I Kiiiiiiiiill you!’

That sketch reminds me of another funny routine, which – out of kindness – we should abstain from pulling on religious people (unless they seriously annoy us).

Ask a devout believer ‘would you kill me if your god commands it?’

Then either enjoy the uncomfortable silence while the poor believer tries to find a suitably equivocal answer – or run like hell (ha, ha) if the answer is an unflinching ‘Yes’: you just met a sociopath, or a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is pretty much the same.

Asking this isn’t nice because it poses a dilemma for the believer – who is usually a good person: a morally sound person would answer straight: ‘No. Killing is evil.’ Morally good, but devout believers try to wiggle out of this because it opens them up for questions of morality: if you refuse a command from your god you place your own moral compass above that of your deity. Plus, it acknowledges that you have your own moral – a moral that now significantly diverges from your god. That ripping sound? That’s either the pages from the bible or the fabric of the faithful’s worldview.

The equivocal answer is usually ‘if god commands it, it must be good. Therefore you must be evil, and I would be justified in killing you’ or ‘God would not command what is evil, so he would not command me to kill you’.

But these answers are also not helpful: the Bible tells the story where Abraham is commanded to sacrifice his son. Isaac wasn’t evil, yet God told Abraham to kill him – God was testing Abraham’s faith. We therefore have a precent. So, would you kill me if He commanded it?

A ‘Yes’ opens the hapless believer up for the meanest question:
How do you know it is God who is commanding you to kill, not some voice in your head or, perhaps, Satan? How do you differentiate between a voice you want to hear (God’s) and one you hope not to hear (Insanity, Satan’s)? How do you tell the difference between Insanity and God?

And again, would you obey?

Human vs. Religious Rights

Posted on by

Should human rights always outweigh religious rights?

This is the title of a recent debate produced by the BBC that aired as part of ‘The Big Question’ last sunday, January 12, 2014.

I was stunned that the question had to be asked at all, and it’s a sign for rational thinkers that there is lot to be done. For one, religious rights do not, or should not, exist. Modern rights have nothing to with religion, and everything to do with justice. But let’s assume they do. Obviously, the underlying question is really

‘if human rights and religious rights are at odds, which one should take precedence’?

If the two agree, there is nothing to discuss.

“Voice for Justice UK“, is a christian belief organization that focuses on maintaining “the original Articles of the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights”. Yes, you’re right – that’s a deceptively benign name for an organization whose main purpose is to fight certain human rights like freedom of sexuality or children’s rights (these were ratified after 1948). But anyway, VFJUK sent Lynda Rose to act as Voice in the debate. In a comment posted before the broadcast, she wrote:

But now, apparently, the newly claimed sexual rights of a minority are being prioritised over all other traditional rights, to the extent that ‘religious’ rights are now being assigned a separate, and seemingly subsidiary, category

First of all, it doesn’t matter if rights are new or old – they are only ‘new’ in a sense that they have been written down recently. They should have been universal from day one. Like the laws of Physics, they existed before their discovery. Unlike natural laws, they can be broken. But the human right to live didn’t just exist since 1948 – it existed before; it merely wasn’t enforced. What’s more, all rights apply to everyone, not just some minority. It’s impossible for Lynda to not know that. Claiming that a minority has ‘special rights’ is skirting dangerously close to fear mongering.

I should also point out that ‘Traditional Rights’ in the context of her comment include rights that have been discarded, like the right to own slaves, or the right to discipline your wife if she disobeys. Just because traditionally some people had them does not mean that they were well-conceived. ‘Traditional’ does not trump ‘just’, Lynda, and it troubles me greatly that I must point this out.

Not surprisingly, the ‘newly claimed’ rights that Lynda rails against are the rights of homosexuals to not being discriminated against. It really puzzles me when someone calls the human right not to be discriminated against ‘new’. It’s not new, it has been the right of every human from the dawn of time. It’s only been recognized in 1948, and somewhat later been amended to extend to sexual discrimination. Homosexuals don’t have more rights than anyone else; they have exactly the same rights, and the amendment was necessary because the civilized world recognized that some were being withheld from them.

More disappointingly, though, Lynda seemingly argues that there are universally acceptable ‘religious rights’. This is emphasized by her introduction:

what really astonished me was the easy assumption that human and ‘religious’ rights are different.

They are not.

Yes they are! There is no such thing as a ‘religious right’ – there are merely privileges that many believers feel they are entitled to – and they react violently when they are denied. There simply are no religious rights – which shows the extend of irrationality that this debate is based upon. Rights based on religion or divinity are thankfully a part of our dark past. Today’s laws are mostly built upon humanism. The right of religious freedom is not a religious right. It allows you to do to yourself, and only to yourself, whatever religious thing you want. It includes the freedom to not being religious, and therefore cannot be called a religious right. It’s called a ‘human’ right for a reason.

Most disappointingly of all, though, Lynda closes her comment with this:

On the programme I was reviled for saying we are approaching a time in this country when we may well see active persecution against Christians. I am forced to admit I was wrong – it has already begun.

It’s incredibly selfish and revealing at the same time that Rose tries to make victims out of perpetrators. New legislation was formed to stem the tide of injustice committed by believers. These people seem to think that since it is their ‘tradition’ to mistreat some people it should be kept as a ‘traditional right’. They assert that the new legislation ‘persecutes’ them. Christians in the UK don’t know what persecution is. All they are experiencing here is that some of their self-asserted privileges are being curtailed in the interest of a more ethical community. That’s not persecution. That’s merely called ‘justice’.

There are human rights, which are universal and unalienable. There are no religious rights, only religious privileges.

So, should fundamental human rights always outweigh religious privileges?

Hell yes.

Sturgeon’s law and religion

Posted on by

Sturgeon’s law states that ’90 percent of everything is crap’.
With regards to science, that is probably true: almost every thesis has been overthrown or changed at least once. Less than 10% of all laws have remained as they were originally formulated. Is that a bad thing or good? Religions are quick to point to the ever changing landscape of scientific discoveries and laws, and interpret that as a flaw, calling it ‘unreliable’.

But let’s look at the alternative:
Religions tout their ‘absolute truth’ and ‘unchanging, objective morality’; out of necessity they can’t change. Confronted with mountains of evidence that contradict their religious dogma, they try to ignore, re-interpret or laugh away facts as said unreliable evidence.

Perhaps 90% of all science is crap. But if we look at religions through the eyes of a rational, ethical being we discover another important fact:

With regards to religion, Sturgeon was 10 percent short.

Professor Strangelove

Posted on by

The bible tells the story where the Israelites, after vanquishing the Medianites, murder all male children, and all non-virgin women. They then take all virgins (Numeri 31:35 boasts that their number was 32’000) as their (sex) slaves. A little later, after again being victorious – this time against the Canaanites – the Israelites kill all survivors: women, boys, girls, even infants.

No-one in their right mind would argue today that these are morally defensible acts.

Enter Professor William Lane Craig. He argues – in writing – that the wholesale slaughter of infants, women and children was essentially their salvation, not murder. Not content with spouting this horrifyingly twisted madness, he then goes on to argue that the massacre was hardest on the Israelites who had to murder all these defenseless, terrorized people.

This is, by the way, the same professor who argues that without a god there would be no objective morals. Color me immoral, but I want nothing of this celestial morality.

What bothers me most, though, is that Craig is by no means stupid. In fact, he’s much more intelligent than you and me combined. If someone this smart can rationalize away religious terror, mayhem and murder, we don’t need to explain why stupid people do it.

… but because they are hard!

Posted on by

A believer once asked me why I was an atheist. He pointed out that it would be much easier to accept the love of god in my heart and live a life of contentment, knowing that I was going to be saved after I die.

He certainly has a point. Being an atheist isn’t easy. People are suspicious of you, assert that you have low moral standards, and seem compelled to bring up Hitler every other day. Your family is sometimes ostracized for not believing, and in some countries being an atheist can be dangerous, even lethal.

So why are we atheists?

We choose to be atheists. We choose to take responsibility for our actions, hold people accountable for what they do, and live our lives as ethical as possible.

We choose to be atheists and do all these things not because they are easy…

Religious Danegeld

Posted on by

In the 12th century the Northmen (also called Danes or Vikings) took to the sea and plundered all over Europe. In England and France, some monarchs thought it prudent to pay a tribute instead of being plundered. This tribute was called Danegeld. Needless to say, it didn’t work well, and only served to prolong the problem. In the end, they had to fight a larger, vastly richer, better equipped, and deadlier enemy.

Today the press censors itself in the hopes of not arousing the ire of muslims. People are denied freedom of speech for the same reason. Governments look the other way when religious people ignore human rights and shadow law is practiced. Those responsible once again believe that they are being prudent, that they are taking the safe approach.

They are not.

Instead of drawing a line in the sand, they try to placate the barbarians at the gate. This will not work. Whenever governments curtail fundamental rights in the ‘interest’ of peace with an aggressive, hostile, morally retarded religion, they are repeating past mistakes.

They are paying religious Danegeld.

Absurd

Posted on by

Human Rights are universal. Unless, of course, they don’t fit your agenda. At the U.N. Third Millennium Summit, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz defended Saudi Arabia’s position on human rights. To quote the King: “It is absurd to impose on an individual or a society rights that are alien to its beliefs or principles.”

He is talking about the right to live, freedom of speech, religion, and the right not be tortured or enslaved. It makes my skin crawl when a human being tells me that these rights are alien to him.

This is the Saudi version of ‘stop making so much noise about your innocence’ from Kafka’s The Trial. 

Absurd has reached a new level in Saudi Arabia.

Is Humor a Human Right?

Posted on by

The United Nations have added new members to the Human Rights Council. Among them are China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. This is noteworthy because a) these countries have refused UNHR inspections, and b) Tibet, treatment of homosexuals, systematic subjugation of women – and frigging Tiananmen Square???

Regrettably, neither the EU nor the US have so much as raised an eyebrow at the new elections.

It’s therefore probably just a matter of time until North Korea will also take their ‘well deserved’ seat at the same table.

This leaves only one conclusion: Making cruel jokes on the backs of the weak and defenseless is also a Human Right.

A missed opportunity

Posted on by

I once heard someone telling his friend the story of the Boy who cried Wolf!, with the obvious conclusions about lying. In a surprising twist, his friend disagreed – the moral of the story, he countered, was obviously a different one: never to be caught in the same lie twice.

Instead of re-interpreting a known tale, I sometimes think how much better a tale could be if it ended differently.

The bible recounts the story where God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son. Priests praise this story as an example of complete Faith in the moral superiority of God.

What an opportunity missed. In a morally superior version of this story, Abraham would have told God to screw himself.