An interesting question regarding human nature

[TransmutingSoul]

While I might accept your notion of ethical boundaries, I find the notion of morals too personal and individual. I leave a person's morals to himself. And I don't care a fig for anyone else's opinions of mine. I do accept that others have the right to be concerned if I act unethically.

There can be no lasting unity if there are no boundaries placed on morality as well.

In fact, our moral conduct is an important foundation to any lasting unity.

Regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There can be no lasting unity if there are no boundaries placed on morality as well.

In fact, our moral conduct is an important foundation to any lasting unity.

Regards Tony

And I'm sorry, but I disagree. I am old enough to remember living in farm homes with party lines -- do you know what those are? They were a way to surreptitiously snoop on your neighbours, to know what they were doing privately.

When we become mature enough not to concern ourselves with the private lives of others, then we will have better hope of lasting unity. Everybody is uncomfortable in a world full of peeping Toms.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A unity in our diversity, where the individual has the right of expression with clear moral and ethical boundaries.

There are no clear moral and ethical boundaries except those one applies to himself and obedience of the law. You don't care for my humanist values, and I don't care for Baha'i values where they depart from mine. You already know that most humanist disapprove of Abrahamic homophobia, but nobody expects you respect what are clear moral and ethical boundaries to humanists, noris it necessary for social cohesion. We don't need to all like or respect one another, or even to bump elbows - just to not be harming one another.

There can be no lasting unity if there are no boundaries placed on morality as well. In fact, our moral conduct is an important foundation to any lasting unity.

It's interesting that you focus on the morals of others. I'm with @Evangelicalhumanist on this. I don't care what your moral values are if you obey the law and aren't persecuting others. If I find them objectionable, we just won't be spending much time together. That's unity, too, or at least as much as anybody needs or has a reasonable expectation of seeing.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And I'm sorry, but I disagree. I am old enough to remember living in farm homes with party lines -- do you know what those are? They were a way to surreptitiously snoop on your neighbours, to know what they were doing privately.

When we become mature enough not to concern ourselves with the private lives of others, then we will have better hope of lasting unity. Everybody is uncomfortable in a world full of peeping Toms.

No peeping tom's required.

It becomes our own personal challenge to hold to a higher morality, it defines our humanity.

Yes, people are not compelled or forced to change, it becomes a choice they can consider, if it may indeed help in the greater good.

Regards Tony

 

[Heyo]

Except that they merely made the claim, never once demonstrating a credible way in which the marriage of two men or two women could have any impact on their own marriage. It was a canard, an unfounded tale meant to frighten people into acquiescence.

Yep, but that doesn't matter since it works. The US population is the most frightened in the world and you get about half of them with any scare. Fear the immigrant, he's gonna take your job. Fear the trans person because she's gonna grope your daughter in the bathroom. Fear Hillary Clinton because she's running a human trafficking ring from the basement of a pizza parlour. Fear the crazy gun man and get yourself a gun. Fear the other.

 

[metis]

The GOP (which is pretty generally Christian) should, in my view, accept some of the blame for the fact that, as in Oklahoma on Saturday night, that most hate violence in the United States these days is directed at the LGBTQ+ community -- you know, those individual enough not to conform to societal norms of heterosexual sex and marriage.

And a great many churches contribute to that as well, including many clergy within Catholicism. At mass yesterday, I was very angered by our priest telling us that Satan has now dominated our country, state [Michigan, passing Proposal 3 that restores allowing for abortions], and the Church itself [possibly aimed at Pope Francis, who many in the conservative clergy tend to literally hate]. He later stated that we can't even any longer discuss any issues relating to gender at the dinner table, and I think you know where that was basically saying.

My wife and I have been attending this same parish for 48 years now, and he's the only priest we've had that mixes partisan politics into the service at times. I called him it on this about 8 months or so ago, and he denied he was doing that, which is what I expected him to do. I also wrote a letter to our archbishop with my name and parish on it and protesting the "misinformation" by the Church on Proposal 3 but have not heard anything back.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You probably noticed, as did others, that I did suggest there was a choice of only two positions, one side or the other. And that makes answering difficult.

(An aside, when you mention which was first, the chicken or the hen -- I think you meant chicken or egg -- there is in fact a good answer to that one: the egg came first, being laid by something "almost-but-not-quite-chicken" but containing an embryo genetically slightly different than its parent that is, in fact, chicken.)

In this case, my own view is that there really isn't a good choice on one side of the question or other: both are equally important, and you can see this watching people facing a crisis. All of a sudden, and only while the crisis is ongoing, people will most often put aside their animosities and work together, for the benefit of all, because there are times when this is simply necessary.

As a Humanist, I agree with @9-10ths_Penguin and @It Aint Necessarily So in this thread, who don't see our differences and our individuality as necessarily antithetical to social cohesion. For the Humanist, the way around this is to accept others who are unique and/or different, so long as they are doing no harm. In this way, in fact, we believe we end up with much richer communities -- communities that, when they do come together at need, have access to many more skills and ideas than smaller, much more homogenous ones. We view that as a strength.

Humanists, like most other people, value both our belonging in our various communities, and our individuality and desire to pursue our own ends in our own ways -- and we value these equally. This allows us, or so we hope and strive, to value the individuality and self-pursuits of others, and at the same time accept them gladly in our communities.

In the end, I think this is the only way forward for humanity. Carl Sagan thought so, too, as have many other philosophers. As we get more powerful, and invent better and better means of destroying each other and our very planet, if we retain our ancestral fear of "outsiders," we will destroy both them and ourselves.

Betrand Russell, thoughts about the Vietnam War

The present argument against war is mainly about nuclear weapons. But if they were out of the way, there would be other arguments that would be just as potent; and the fact is, that scientific man cannot survive if he is to make war. I mean, the worst possibility is that human life may be extinguished, and it’s a very real possibility, very real. And that is the worst, but assuming that doesn’t happen, I can’t bear the thought of many hundreds of millions of people dying in agony, only and solely because the rulers of the world are stupid and wicked; and I can’t bear it.

Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But in following that pattern, it necessarily means stifling the individuality of some people in the moment.

That is OK. Even in a democracy, everyone does not get what he/she wants. One has to moderate one's wants.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is OK. Even in a democracy, everyone does not get what he/she wants. One has to moderate one's wants.

It may well be that one can't have everything one wants, but there are still things that one must have to survive. Air, food, water. And there are also things that one must have to not just survive but live. And if one does not get those things, that is when breakdowns in your society become certain.

One can only moderate so far, but certainly not so far as to become someone else altogether. And that is why tolerance of individuality is as important as social cohesion -- because without it, you will eventually get revolution in one form or another. And that is the history of mankind -- so far.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Society is not intolerant, otherwise the changes that have occurred (in all societies) would not have come.

 

[Heyo]

Society is not intolerant, otherwise the changes that have occurred (in all societies) would not have come.

Many of those changes came after a long time and much struggle.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, it does happen like that. But to term the society bad is like terming democracy bad, though we know the problems associated with democracy.

 

[Heyo]

Yeah, it does happen like that. But to term the society bad is like terming democracy bad, though we know the problems associated with democracy.

You can phrase it two ways: 1. Society is tolerant, it only needs time and enforcement to get there or 2. society is intolerant but can be swayed over time with effort.
I think the first is sugar coating the fact.

 

[Heyo]

Yeah, it does happen like that. But to term the society bad is like terming democracy bad, though we know the problems associated with democracy.

You can phrase it two ways: 1. Society is tolerant, it only needs time and enforcement to get there or 2. society is intolerant but can be swayed over time with effort.
I think the first is sugar coating the fact.

 

[Heyo]

Yeah, it does happen like that. But to term the society bad is like terming democracy bad, though we know the problems associated with democracy.

You can phrase it two ways: 1. Society is tolerant, it only needs time and enforcement to get there or 2. society is intolerant but can be swayed over time with effort.
I think the first is sugar coating the fact.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are limits to what people in a society will tolerate (depending on the issue). It is not absolutely tolerant and it is also not absolutely intolerant.
Society always had dissenters.