site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34430 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

15
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Instead, they suggest that without the fear of god and the set of rules there's simply no other way to create internal drivers for morality.

No -- instead I'll suggest that without the fear of God "morality" is an unintelligible term.

If you think it's somehow 'wrong' to put your unwanted infant on a dung heap to die of starvation or be sold into prostitution; if you think it's 'wrong' to sail down the coast to where the people talk funny and kill the men, rape the women, and enslave the children; if you think that all humans are of equal (and infinite) moral worth; you just might be descended from a Christian culture.

Baseline human 'morality' looks like Genghis Khan, and I don't recognize it as such. It's just game theory.

It's just game theory.

Sure, and there are social pressures that make developing a game-winning strategy look an awful like morality. Even if it's just "Game Theory" instead of divine edict, that doesn't make it any less good for society or yourself.

I'm a lifetime atheist, but I'll be the first to admit that a subset of the 10 commandments are fine items to start living by. You're inferring that we're all just copying off of Christ's work, I'd say that his was all rooted in basic tribal cooperation.

Gonna press x to doubt on this one. What is the protocol when another tribe has nothing at all to offer one's own besides their land, accumulated wealth (if any), and expendable labor?

We don't have to ask; history is replete with examples of how this plays out in the absence of an otherwise-unaccountable conviction that those people somehow matter as much as ours do.

Gonna press x to doubt on this one. What is the protocol when another tribe has nothing at all to offer one's own besides their land, accumulated wealth (if any), and expendable labor?

This is short term thinking IMO. Slavery isn't a viable economic model, raping and murdering only is fun if you can outrun the burnt fields behind you your whole life, and stealing resources in a one time event instead of managing their creation is a surefire way to stay poor.

history is replete with examples of how this plays out in the absence of an otherwise-unaccountable conviction that those people somehow matter

Of course if you think of other humans as pathetic animals you won't treat them well. Once again, this boils down to stupidity. Blind, ignorant racism can make a society immoral, I won't dispute that.

I don't think Israel is descended from a Christian culture, and it's a lot closer to Western morality than its neighbors. I don't think Japan is descended from a Christian culture either, but if you went to Japan and started preaching about how you should sail down the coast and rape and enslave, people would think you're insane.

if you went to Japan and started preaching about how you should sail down the coast and rape and enslave, people would think you're insane

Boy of all the examples to pick. Japan was precisely that way within living memory. What changed?

As to Israel, modern Judaism is younger than (and a reaction to) Christianity, and also Israel is heavily populated by Western (somewhat Christianized) Jews, and if you go ask the Jews who are still fairly un-Christianized they'll gladly tell you that non-Jews are only there to serve Jews.

Boy of all the examples to pick. Japan was precisely that way within living memory. What changed?

One could argue that they ended up that way because of forced contact with Christian cultures (i.e. Japan's history before and after the Meiji Restoration). Japan had something approaching a democracy before an ultranationalist junta sent it down the path to the 1930's and beyond.

Speaking of which, perhaps one could have argued that, from a Shintoist perspective, the Empire's actions had so offended the gods that they didn't lift a finger to stop the Enola Gay when she took off on that fateful day. Or, for the Buddhists, perhaps the sheer karmic weight of everything going on caused Shiva himself to manifest in the world, and J. Robert Oppenheimer's recollection of that quote from the Bhagavad Gita was no mere coincidence...

Okay, okay, more seriously, I think it's generally more that religion is necessary, but perhaps not sufficient when it comes to morality--or at least morality at scale. As per Hoffmeister's thread above, the requirements to prevent chaos and destruction--the things that work--may well change as you increase the size of civilizations. When things don't look anything like the Jesus-era Roman Empire, you need something else to enforce civility and niceness.

if you go ask the Jews who are still fairly un-Christianized they'll gladly tell you that non-Jews are only there to serve Jews.

What? No.

What? No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef

Ovadia Yosef (Hebrew: עובדיה יוסף, romanized: Ovadya Yosef, Arabic: عبد الله يوسف, romanized: Abdullah Yusuf;[2] September 24, 1920 – October 7, 2013)[3] was an Iraqi-born Talmudic scholar, a posek, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel from 1973 to 1983, and a founder and long-time spiritual leader of Israel's ultra-Orthodox Shas party.[4][5] Yosef's responsa were highly regarded within Haredi circles, particularly among Mizrahi communities, among whom he was regarded as "the most important living halakhic authority".

So, what was his attitude towards non-Jewish people?

In a sermon he delivered in October 2010, Yosef was strongly condemned (including, among others, by the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee)[81][82][61] after stating that "the sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews".[61][62][83] In his sermon, he said:

"Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.[84]

In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they'd lose their money. This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew," Yosef said.

"Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat.

That is why gentiles were created"[84]

Do you understand the difference between "the Jews" and "one Jew"?

I'm not claiming that most Jews would disagree -- only that the ones who do have undergone much more cross-pollination with Christian thought than those who don't.

Something like: The less Christianized the Jew, the more likely the Jew is to believe that Jews matter more than non-Jews. But now I'm saying something that is true of all people. Such Jews are unique in some of the particulars but the overall picture is common to man.

Do you understand the difference between "the Jews" and "one Jew"?

Do you understand the difference between "one Jew" and "one Jew, seen as the highest authority by half of the world's Jews?"

by half of the world's Jews?"

Where are you getting this from? Haredi Jews are about 14% of the Jewish population of the world (and 12.9% of Israel's), and even then, "seen as an authority by" is not the same thing as "every word is obeyed by". It's deceptive to imply that 50% or even 12.9% of the world's Jews agree with him on this.

China and india in the middle ages and early modernity were more orderly and advanced societies than europe without knowing christianity. IMO what brings order in society is not any particular ideology but the enforcement, through violence, of the rule of law.

Religion in this sense, probably just offers a cope: human justice isn't perfect but those who escape it will be punished in the next life.

BTW, thinking that morality descends from god directly is not universal in christian theology, IIRC aquinas believed that it was derived from human nature.

IIRC aquinas believed that it was derived from human nature

Okay, this needs clarification. What we are talking about here are the three Theological Virtues - Faith, Hope, Charity/Love - and the Four Cardinal Virtues - Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude. The three theological virtues are only known by divine revelation and the grace of God. The four cardinal virtues arise out of natural law/human nature and can be held by anyone, including pagans.

Hit me up, Tommy A:

Summa Theologiae > First Part of the Second Part > Question 61

Question 61. The cardinal virtues

  1. Should the moral virtues be called cardinal or principal virtues?

  2. Their number

  3. Which are they?

  4. Do they differ from one another?

  5. Are they fittingly divided into social, perfecting, perfect, and exemplar virtues?

Taking an excerpt from Article 1:

I answer that, When we speak of virtue simply, we are understood to speak of human virtue. Now human virtue, as stated above (I-II:56:3), is one that answers to the perfect idea of virtue, which requires rectitude of the appetite: for such like virtue not only confers the faculty of doing well, but also causes the good deed done. On the other hand, the name virtue is applied to one that answers imperfectly to the idea of virtue, and does not require rectitude of the appetite: because it merely confers the faculty of doing well without causing the good deed to be done. Now it is evident that the perfect is principal as compared to the imperfect: and so those virtues which imply rectitude of the appetite are called principal virtues. Such are the moral virtues, and prudence alone, of the intellectual virtues, for it is also something of a moral virtue, as was clearly shown above (I-II:57:4). Consequently, those virtues which are called principal or cardinal are fittingly placed among the moral virtues.

From a different question about the moral and intellectual virtues:

Reply to Objection 3. Faith, hope, and charity are superhuman virtues: for they are virtues of man as sharing in the grace of God.

And then another one about the theological virtues:

Article 2. Whether the theological virtues are distinct from the intellectual and moral virtues?

Objection 1. It would seem that the theological virtues are not distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues. For the theological virtues, if they be in a human soul, must needs perfect it, either as to the intellective, or as to the appetitive part. Now the virtues which perfect the intellective part are called intellectual; and the virtues which perfect the appetitive part, are called moral. Therefore, the theological virtues are not distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues.

Objection 2. Further, the theological virtues are those which direct us to God. Now, among the intellectual virtues there is one which directs us to God: this is wisdom, which is about Divine things, since it considers the highest cause. Therefore the theological virtues are not distinct from the intellectual virtues.

Objection 3. Further, Augustine (De Moribus Eccl. xv) shows how the four cardinal virtues are the "order of love." Now love is charity, which is a theological virtue. Therefore the moral virtues are not distinct from the theological.

On the contrary, That which is above man's nature is distinct from that which is according to his nature. But the theological virtues are above man's nature; while the intellectual and moral virtues are in proportion to his nature, as clearly shown above (I-II:58:3). Therefore they are distinct from one another.

I answer that, As stated above (I-II:54:2 ad 1), habits are specifically distinct from one another in respect of the formal difference of their objects. Now the object of the theological virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the knowledge of our reason. On the other hand, the object of the intellectual and moral virtues is something comprehensible to human reason. Wherefore the theological virtues are specifically distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues.

Reply to Objection 1. The intellectual and moral virtues perfect man's intellect and appetite according to the capacity of human nature; the theological virtues, supernaturally.

Reply to Objection 2. The wisdom which the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 3,7) reckons as an intellectual virtue, considers Divine things so far as they are open to the research of human reason. Theological virtue, on the other hand, is about those same things so far as they surpass human reason.

Reply to Objection 3. Though charity is love, yet love is not always charity. When, then, it is stated that every virtue is the order of love, this can be understood either of love in the general sense, or of the love of charity. If it be understood of love, commonly so called, then each virtue is stated to be the order of love, in so far as each cardinal virtue requires ordinate emotions; and love is the root and cause of every emotion, as stated above (I-II:27:4; I-II:28:6 ad 2; I-II:41:2 ad 1). If, however, it be understood of the love of charity, it does not mean that every other virtue is charity essentially: but that all other virtues depend on charity in some way, as we shall show further on (Question 65, Articles 2 and 5; II-II:23:7).

I was also thinking about quaestio 90 and following of the first part of the second part.

IMO what brings order in society is not any particular ideology but the enforcement, through violence, of the rule of law.

Yes. We're not talking about order. We're talking about morality.

You'll have to clarify, then. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are we talking about morality of the individual (as in: the ability of an individual to know good from evil) or are we talking about the moral basis of laws? Something else?

Right, my point here is that without reference to God 'morality' is an unintelligible term. We can talk about order, or smooth social functioning, or game theory -- all kinds of things! But those are not what we mean when we talk about morality. Morality is what is right above all those other concerns by dint of our relationship to our creator.

Morality is what is right above all those other concerns by dint of our relationship to our creator.

Well, yeah, if you define "morality" specifically to mean "doing the will of the Christian God", then it's definitely true that without the Christian God there can be no morality. But then this isn't a very useful statement.

We might more generally define "morality" as "actions in accordance with one's telos", which moves the problem back a step.

But it does leave us in more or less the same position, because now we need a telos, and that is not something we can give ourselves! Maybe 'survival' but that's a losing game at both the micro and macro scales, and we all know it. Also moloch, etc.

For most of Western history "morality" has meant precisely "actions in accordance with the will of our Creator," and a "good person" is one who acts accordingly.

In the pre-Christian West, a "good man" looked a lot more like Genghis Khan. He was the one who brought benefit to his people, typically at the horrific expense of others. Mercy, compassion, and so on were considered weaknesses, even to the point that the Roman goddess of such wasn't really. Clementia -- clemency -- is not the same thing. It's more like, the ability to overlook another's shortcomings to work together more effectively, as is beneficial for bringing temporal benefit to the people. A man who organized others to sail down the coast and rape, kill, loot, etc. was among the best of men.

Christianity changed a lot. All of a sudden it was considered wrong to, idk, kill inconvenient children, slaves, etc. All of a sudden there was this notion that the powerful had an obligation to the weak. And much, much more.

Now, an atheist can say something like, "Of course I can be moral! I can also perform common-sense game theoretical calculations with the aim of maximizing utilons!" But this is really not the same thing at all, and also I call BS on consequentialism because we are at best capable of tracking consequences to a few degrees out, after which we have no idea what the effects of our actions really are, and also I'm highly skeptical of the idea that "everyone matters" follows naturally.

Societies oriented toward a higher divine will (generally Abrahamic afaict) generated higher moralities. Within this moral ecosystem, defectors (atheists) were able to say, "But I don't need to believe in that telos to act the same as everyone else!" And to a point this is true, but it does suggest a frame within which atheism is a moral parasite. Able to crib, that is, but not to generate. And as a society takes its eyes off the telos, it naturally starts to backslide toward baseline human """morality""", which is not, imo, a good thing. But I can only make such normative statements because I'm still fixed on the telos.

Well, yeah, if you define "morality" specifically to mean "doing the will of the Christian God", then it's definitely true that without the Christian God there can be no morality. But then this isn't a very useful statement.

Sure it is. Just not for you.

Genghis Khan was a good religious person acting according to the will of his creator, Tengri.

"When the blue sky [Tengri] above and the brown earth below were created, between them a human being was created. Over the human beings, my ancestors Bumin Kagan and Istemi Kagan ruled. They ruled people by Turkish laws, they led them and succeeded" (face 1, line 1); "Tengri creates death. Human beings have all been created in order to die"

Atheists are 'defectors' to the morality-creating will of one more of such deities.

My morality is nothing compared to the will of tengri. Sure, I can 'parasite' off the morality of the religious when I pillage and rape, but I am incapable of generating something so beautifully circular.

You're the only one here talking about 'religion' like it's a useful or applicable category.

More comments

I am incapable of generating something so beautifully circular.

And incapable of generating offspring either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

26 March 1941 (age 81)

Spouses Marian Stamp(m. 1967; div. 1984) Eve Barham(m. 1984, divorced) Lalla Ward(m. 1992; sep. 2016)

Children 1 (one)

Perhaps some kind of... Natural selection so to speak?

More comments

I disagree, I think our brains are sufficiently similar that if we understood them better we could come to formalize some basic universal principles of morality, indepent of trascendental beliefs. This is one way to come to an objective morality without revelation, there are others.

There's also a big difference between claiming that you need a god to define morality vs claiming that you specifically need the christian god.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats