Moral Bigotry Without Religion

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Does moral bigotry without religion exist? If so, how does it exist?

Example #1: Moral bigotry with religion. One man eats a pig. Or he serves one for dinner. Another man says, no, whoever eats that will go to Hell. He thinks the first man is trying to send him to Hell, so he kills him. Now, if he's right, this is legitimately self-defence. If the first man will commit one atrocity, he may very well lie and try to do it again. If eating a pig is really an atrocity, then you don't even need to justify that he may send you to Hell. He's done something beyond terrible so he gets punished and most people accept that if you do something horrible enough, death might be a suitable punishment.

Example #2: Morality, without bigotry. One population thinks scams and lies are perfectly fine, but violence is never okay, while the other side thinks violence is fine if it's against dishonesty and scams which are never justified. The honest people agree not to kill the scammers, and the scammers agree to at least display in their businesses that they are lie- and scam-allowed. Now, with this compromise, both sides can live in the same society in a way that is fair to both, though each side has had to make a sacrifice: The honesty-enforced side cannot use violence against the scammer side even if they are deceived, as they would with their own, and the scammer side cannot completely pretend they are honest, as they think they have every right to do. Since each compromise requires sacrifices on both sides, theoretically, with enough compromises, everyone becomes unhappy.

I used to think there was no overlap, and a religious society must have moral bigotry, while two nonreligious people would simply have to work it out like they did in example 2, or simply not live together if they can't mutually agree on a compromise. This is because the religious person believes he (or his god) has a higher moral authority, and the nonreligious person does not believe that. I've learned there can be religious morality without bigotry, if a higher authority exists but didn't decide every nuance. Or if a higher authority exists but two people who both believe something different, can never quite be sure they're right about what it wants, so compromise has to be done in practice. But I don't see how there can be nonreligious moral bigotry.

If the nonreligious person believes he has a higher moral authority, and doesn't have to compromise because he is simply righteous and the other person isn't, how could he possibly come to this belief? I've always been very fair to the religious, assuming every rational motive I possibly can, and I ask for likewise in return: Please assume this nonreligious person is not simply insane. How can he possibly believe as he does?

[JehovahsWitness]

...
Believing or trusting on faith would come in at prejudice ...

I find it best to avoid using biblical terms such as "faith" especially with unbelievers since it can be interpreted to mean different things to different people. That said, if you are arguing that to believe written information without giving due thought or consideration to its veracity makes one prejudice, I would respond possibly.


But since the bible reader is encouraged to reason, consider and test out by personal experience the information before believing , it hardly fits the definition of provoking "prejudice"

prejudice: opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience

[JehovahsWitness]

Are some things not "inherently wrong"? And avoiding them inherently right?

Do you believe your raping your own baby daughter would be wrong ? If so, would that make you bigot?

I think it is wrong but that doesn't mean I hold my view is absolute.

So does thinking something is wrong (like you do) make one a bigot? I take it you don't think raping a baby us wrong because you have personally experienced doing it . I presume you believe/think its wrong because you have heard or read about the harm it causes and personally find the idea morally repugnant.

How are you different from a religious person that feels the same as you do?

As far as absolutes is concerned it seems to me you would classify all mathematicians as bigots since they would probably hold that 2 +2=5 and that anyone that disagrees is wrong.


In short, unless you are going to resort to double standards (arguably a rather bigoted premise ) accepting written information, believing in the existence of right and wrong (as you do) or accepting the existence of absolutes do not a bigot make if they are all based on reason and considered thought.

[Purple Knight]

Are some things not "inherently wrong"? And avoiding them inherently right?

Do you believe your raping your own baby daughter would be wrong ? If so, would that make you bigot?

I think it is wrong but that doesn't mean I hold my view is absolute.

So does thinking something is wrong (like you do) make one a bigot? I take it you don't think raping a baby us wrong because you have personally experienced doing it . I presume you believe/think its wrong because you have heard or read about the harm it causes and personally find the idea morally repugnant.

How are you different from a morally bigoted person that feels the same as you do?

Not much. And I replaced religious because I have ultimately realised that it was childish to think that only religious people can be morally bigoted. I don't see how a nonreligious person can justify it, but some of them clearly are.

The way I'm different is that if someone disagrees with me, I don't think I can tell them what to do. It's not a huge difference because they can't tell me what to do either, and if they come try to rape my kid imma kill 'em, because my morality says I can defend my kid. The difference comes in where I don't get to tell them what to do. And ultimately, if they're not bothering me, I have to leave them alone.

As far as absolutes is concerned it seems to me you would classify all mathematicians as bigots since they would probably hold that 2 +2=5 and that anyone that disagrees is wrong.

They don't though. You could have a numeric system where this symbol here - 5 - denotes this many things - 1111 - and the statement 2 + 2 = 5, is actually correct. If they think there can't be such a system, and that these specific glyphs go with these specific numbers of things in perpetuity throughout the universe, then yes they're bigots.

I see what you mean and I think I have a more useful definition. I don't have a perfectly precise one, but it has to do with being unable or unwilling to entertain the idea that you might be wrong. For the moment we'll go with math actually being absolute and not stipulative. Because there are formulations where your objection will be absolutely valid and this proves I'm not out to quibble. Even though I did quibble. (I just think that understanding math that way is really important.)

It's not that people who think 2 + 2 = 4 is absolutely true won't entertain that they are wrong, it's that they already have entertained it and that's why they're so sure. They, like every other little kid doing arithmetic, once wrote down an answer that did not reflect the total number of sticks that was there when the first pile was physically added to the second. In other words, the finger abacus disagreed with them. (Again, we're forgetting about the way the glyphs are assigned and assuming they made some sort of carrying error or something.)

By my definition, you're not bigoted unless, when confronted with a contrary idea, you'll put your fingers in your ears and go, "Tralalalalala that can't be right haha stuuuuupid obviously wrong!" Some religious people are like this, and I feel like it's a stereotype that may be on the whole undeserved, but some nonreligious people are doing this too. It confounds me how they do it, but they do it. I've watched Amazing Atheist do it.

In short, unless you are going to resort to double standards (arguably a rather bigoted premise) accepting written information, believing in the existence of right and wrong (as you do) or accepting the existence of absolutes do not a bigot make if they are all based on reason and considered thought.

I don't though. I'm exceptional but I don't. I've expressed on this very forum how frustrating it is to have to pretend I believe Abraham Lincoln absolutely existed and that anyone who says otherwise is crazy. I don't like doing it but in some countries I could be prosecuted for not doing it. This actually is a standard I have, though the world forces me to lie about it, even if it's only lies of omission. That said, I don't support defining everyone who accepts written information as a bigot, because it's non-useful. Your definition does that too. The one that's more useful is that you're only a bigot if your response to conflicting information is to dismiss it out of hand.

And yes this still puts many round-earthers down as bigots, just not all of them, because they all get a chance. In other words, accepting that the earth is round or that God created the world when you were told so, isn't bigoted. It's about what happens when people suggest otherwise. Finger-in-ear-stickers who go tralala that's wrong soooo stupid, without ever thinking about it, are bigoted. That's the best I've got, and it's probably not perfect.

[JehovahsWitness]

Are some things not "inherently wrong"? And avoiding them inherently right?

Do you believe your raping your own baby daughter would be wrong ? If so, would that make you bigot?

I think it is wrong but that doesn't mean I hold my view is absolute.

So does thinking something is wrong (like you do) make one a bigot? I take it you don't think raping a baby us wrong because you have personally experienced doing it . I presume you believe/think its wrong because you have heard or read about the harm it causes and personally find the idea morally repugnant.

How are you different from a [morally bigoted] person that feels the same as you do?

Not much. And I replaced religious because I have ultimately realised that it was childish to think that only religious people can be morally bigoted. I don't see how a nonreligious person can justify it, but some of them clearly are.

The way I'm different is that if someone disagrees with me, I don't think I can tell them what to do.

But you select officials that speak for you and do.

As far as absolutes is concerned it seems to me you would classify all mathematicians as bigots since they would probably hold that 2 +2=5 and that anyone that disagrees is wrong.

.... If they think there can't be such a system, and that these specific glyphs go with these specific numbers of things in perpetuity throughout the universe, then yes they're bigots.

An thus man does not reach the moon. If your point is that holding to evident, provable and falsefiable facts makes someone a bigot, are you not making your children bigots by teaching them not to plunge their hands into boiling water?

The one that's more useful is that you're only a bigot if your response to conflicting information is to dismiss it out of hand.

Fair enough. But are we obliged to go into an in depth discussion with everyone that tells us the earth is flat to prove to the we have given the matter due consideration? Once one is convinced of fundamental truths the only question necessary is : do you have anything new to bring to the table?

My point is that in a world that makes free and easy with emotive terms and inaccurate catagorizations, to catagorized people as "moral bigots" simply because they are religious and/or believe in right and wrong " is linguisticaly inaccurate , hypocritical (should that person also believe in the existence of right and wrong) and ... bigoted.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is a pretty tricky subject where what is generally accepted to be true - like the earth is not flat - has people arguing that it is. When they are doing active apologetics proving that the earth is flay t, is it wrong to push back against it? Is it wrong to put a round earth 'in the textbooks'? shouldn't we 'teach the controversy' by having flat earth taught alongside round earth?

Or is it right to take what is generally accepted on a science and indeed observational basis as the fact? Or is that bigotry? I'm sure you can see where this is going, without even getting onto the bad and impractical and contradictory arguments that flat earthists use.

It rather would be to sack someone from his job as an IT consultant because he was also a flat earthist, but if he was pestering his colleagues and even customers with his Flat earth belief (putting it in capitals means it is a Faith) then his job might be on the line, and ius he being unreasonable to go online saying he's being persecuted?

It gets even more contentious if a large flat earth group gets a majority on the council and rules that flat earth will now be taught in the schools and Flat earthist textbooks will be part of the curriculum.

I'm sure you see the parallels and the problem of what is known to be true vs what is just Faith. It gets evfen more contentious with politics and social movements like the ongoing battle between SJW entertainments and the pushback from 'traditional family values'. With both sides calling the other side bigots. But that's is a real hot - button one, before we even get onto political matters like the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, and that's without even looking at religious debate and divide.

Like Al Murray said: "It's a contentious situation and my explaining it could make it even worse". And one might say it isn't relevant to a religious debate g forum, but it is, because it is bang on relevant to modes of thinking in debate between religions and irreligion. Not so much between religions because that is simple. They live together with simmering hostility until a war breaks out.

[Purple Knight]

The way I'm different is that if someone disagrees with me, I don't think I can tell them what to do.

But you select officials that speak for you and do.

I don't think the political process applies to those who are so morally adamant that they think their will is higher than a fair compromise. (But they're the ones who shouldn't be voting.) The result of the political process applies to those who genuinely want to use it to come to an agreement about policies, and will both accept the result as fair, should they lose. And I think anyone who wants a new age nonreligious theocracy of progressivism and tolerance should move to California, and I will support them so that they can secede. I'm more left than right, but that used to mean moral tolerance, too, not draconian moral theocracy. Sometimes I think I'm the last person alive who thinks that just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean they're wrong and should be punished.

The one that's more useful is that you're only a bigot if your response to conflicting information is to dismiss it out of hand.

Fair enough. But are we obliged to go into an in depth discussion with everyone that tells us the earth is flat to prove to the we have given the matter due consideration? Once one is convinced of fundamental truths the only question necessary is : do you have anything new to bring to the table?

I think if people are intellectually honest it's easy to see who is just a finger-in-ear-sticker. For example, I know you're religious but you're also very obviously reasoned. I also know people who have no interest in thinking about anything that conflicts with their worldview for one solitary second. But you have a good point about my definition technically including a lot of round-earthers and ideally we'd perhaps not want to define people who believe that the earth is round or that 1 + 1 = 2, into being bigoted (even though the math one doesn't quite count because we're using a stipulative system where 1 + 1 is defined to equal 2).

I don't have a definition that is perfect. But I think if the round-earthers have to be a casualty of our "trust the science" era, that's slightly more fair than any other division currently on the table. If you transposed these people into the past, they would have been flat-earthers, and they would have been wrong, unless they actually were open to evidence, in which case they might have been convinced of better.

My point is that in a world that makes free and easy with emotive terms and inaccurate catagorizations, to catagorized people as "moral bigots" simply because they are religious and/or believe in right and wrong " is linguisticaly inaccurate , hypocritical (should that person also believe in the existence of right and wrong) and ... bigoted.

It's very concise and it has nothing to do with religion. Modern moralists do it more than modern religious people, though I'm bewildered as to how they justify it without a higher moral power to do so. Someone who will attempt to compromise or agree to live separately if no compromise exists, someone who considers that the other guy's way might be just as valid, is not a moral bigot. Someone who unthinkingly says, "No, you live how I say, because I am righteous and you are not," is a moral bigot.

These modern moralists are so convinced that they are and have The Way, that they would go to a happy flower-picking Nazi society that was perfectly passive and didn't hurt anybody because it had the ethnic purity it wanted, and force all the happy isolationist Nazis all into a diverse society where the results of their racism would be dire. They don't even see that there's a perfect solution to racism, and that's to let the racists be left the heck alone. Try asking one of them something like, "Oh, if the white people are so bad and hurt so many people because they have so much hatred, and they just want to live away from other races, why not let them? That helps everybody, right?" They will get so angry you will think they shat their pants. And they will not think about it. At all. They will just yell at you. That is moral bigotry.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

The Human Experience = a set of scams we must go through...Not in it’s wholeness – but certainly in its parts…The Interplay Between Minds: Human, Earth, and Universal

Whom is scamming whom?



Amazing!

[JehovahsWitness]

...Sometimes I think I'm the last person alive who thinks that just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean they're wrong and should be punished.

That's probably because your claimed position is untenable. To believe as you do, that child abuse might be right and that child abusers should be able to baby sit your kids, only works in the fictional world of your imagination.

In reality you do not wish you children to be raped just in case they might like it, you
do want to infringe on a rapists freedom to act as he or she wishes.

Worse to mislabel those that believe in justice (which is essentially the application of what us right and good) as moral bigotry , you prepare the ground for the worst kind of evil, namely evil masqerading as good and a cultish adherence to fantasy that puts the innocent and defensless at risk.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, clearly it is all complicated ans d confusing and that should just be accepted; there are no easy answers, and certainly not the 'Put everything out of your mind other than the Faith -claim i am selling you'. Simple 'sign - here' solutions are never good enough and the danger is not so much in the attempts we make to correct the problems, but those who think that getting thousands of people chanting the same slogans (religious or political) is the way to put everything right.

Succinctly, it is a scam and a con for religion (or politics) to point to real problems or imagines ones (like the end of the world found in prophecy) and pretend that Faith in what they are selling is the answer to everything. We simply have to wise up to these scammers.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

Scamming is a habitual way in which individual human personalities use their survival instincts to enable lifestyle.

The "glue" involved with that process is $money$.
Religion and Politics are wedded in that regard, and not alone - for these are the children of Culture.

It is - altogether, a Great Con which goes beyond the finger-pointers of atheism and theism and essentially embroils Human Personalities (Souls) in a web of deceit - a deceit so thick and sticky we don't even recognize it for what it is, and consequently, us for who we are.

But it ain't all bad news...

The Good News - at least for me re The Biblical Characters re the message they shared - is as long as I continue to remove the thick and sticky Religion/Politics and Culture from that Message, the news is all good.

For me - The Con is over, even while it goes on...

Re that.

Your perspective on scamming and the intertwined roles of money, religion, politics, and culture is quite thought-provoking. It seems you view these institutions as mechanisms that perpetuate a grand deception, entangling human personalities in a web of survival-driven behaviors. Your point about the pervasive nature of this deceit, to the extent that it obscures our true selves, is particularly striking.

However, you find hope and liberation in the core messages of biblical characters, suggesting that by stripping away the layers of religion, politics, and culture, you uncover a pure and positive truth. This insight appears to offer you a sense of personal freedom and clarity amidst the broader societal con.

Your stance is reminiscent of various philosophical and spiritual perspectives that advocate for seeking truth beyond societal constructs. How do you practically apply this understanding in your daily life, and how has it impacted your interactions with the world?