Ministers, proselytizers, and ethics

[George-ananda]

I'm not so sure.

Just getting people to rely on a promise of an afterlife is likely to have impacts on a person's life: they could de-value the things in this life. They could de-prioritize, say, repairing a broken relationship with a loved one ("I'll have all sorts of time to do it after I'm dead").

The ethics of promising an afterlife depend greatly on the afterlife being real. If it isn't, then you're inflicting a cruel, harmful trick on them. Not as harmful as setting off a bomb in a crowd, sure, but still ethically problematic.

As an analogy, it would be unethical to convince someone that they have a million dollars in their chequing account - and by extension to live like a millionaire - if they only have $100. It would still be unethical if you had no idea how much money they had.

And the other side of the coin would be if there is an afterlife (which my best objective study tells me there is beyond reasonable doubt), and believe I know from advanced souls how people can grow spiritually but don't tell anyone searching for answers what I have found most reasonable and possibly helpful to them, then am I being unethical?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And the other side of the coin would be if there is an afterlife (which my best objective study tells me there is beyond reasonable doubt),

This must be the one you've kept to yourself, because any "studies" I've ever seen you cite had holes in them big enough to drive a truck through.

and believe I know from advanced souls how people can grow spiritually but don't tell anyone searching for answers what I have found most reasonable and possibly helpful to them, then am I being unethical?

Probably depends on the consequences and your level of justification for your beliefs. Most of us don't feel compelled to give other people every suggestion they think might be helpful.

 

[Tumah]

...which they say is correct.

Well look, from the perspective of an engineer, a building may be perfectly sound, but in reality, there may be foreseeable geographic or meteorologic events that could render a building completely unstable. You won't blame an engineer for not predicting an earthquake.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well look, from the perspective of an engineer, a building may be perfectly sound, but in reality, there may be foreseeable geographic or meteorologic events that could render a building completely unstable. You won't blame an engineer for not predicting an earthquake.

Your analogy is strained. Any engineer who makes determinations and recommendations like that is very clear about what is and isn't in the scope of his conclusions.

Edit: I'd say it's very uncommon for a religious minister or proselytizer to qualofy his claims with "I have no idea whether this is actually true, but here's a traditional belief of my religion."

 

[Tumah]

Your analogy is strained. Any engineer who makes determinations and recommendations like that is very clear about what is and isn't in the scope of his conclusions.

And what's important is that we clearly understand what he is and is not saying. We looks at him as an engineer, not a geologist, because what he studied is engineering, not geology. So when we talk to him, we aren't expecting him to comment about the tectonic plate movement.

 

[George-ananda]

This must be the one you've kept to yourself, because any "studies" I've ever seen you cite had holes in them big enough to drive a truck through.

Again, back to my 'who is the official judge' question. I referred to a triple-blind study earlier and saw no trucks on its other side.

Probably depends on the consequences and your level of justification for your beliefs. Most of us don't feel compelled to give other people every suggestion they think might be helpful.

Sometimes advice can be very helpful to others. We use our own best-intentioned wisdom to judge when to offer advice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what's important is that we clearly understand what he is and is not saying. We looks at him as an engineer, not a geologist, because what he studied is engineering, not geology. So when we talk to him, we aren't expecting him to comment about the tectonic plate movement.

Actually, you quite often would. The building code has requirements for seismic design, so an engineer saying that a building meets code will often imply that the engineer is stating that the building will have a degree of earthquake resistance.

However, I fail to see how this is relevant to religious ministry.

I also fail to see how a minister who offers faith healing or tells a convert that they'll get rewarded in Heaven if they join the church (and tithe, of course) isn't making actual claims about the real world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, back to my 'who is the official judge' question. I referred to a triple-blind study earlier and saw no trucks on its other side.

When you assure us that a study is wonderful but provide no details, I don't count this as actually presenting a study.

Sometimes advice can be very helpful to others. We use our own best-intentioned wisdom to judge when to offer advice.

And how is this relevant to telling when you're ethically obligated to give advice to someone? How do you make that determination?

 

[Tumah]

Actually, you quite often would. The building code has requirements for seismic design, so an engineer saying that a building meets code will often imply that the engineer is stating that the building will have a degree of earthquake resistance.

Hopefully, despite the flaw in the real-world application of my philosophical argument, you were still able to understand me.

However, I fail to see how this is relevant to religious ministry.

I also fail to see how a minister who offers faith healing or tells a convert that they'll get rewarded in Heaven if they join the church (and tithe, of course) isn't making actual claims about the real world.

Because anyone who comes to this minister understands that the minister is speaking as a representative of his religion's beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hopefully, despite the flaw in the real-world application of my philosophical argument, you were still able to understand me.

No, I wasn't... or at least, the message I take from what you're saying is false. I don't think you're realistically portraying religious ministry or proselytizing.

Because anyone who comes to this minister understands that the minister is speaking as a representative of his religion's beliefs.

...which he holds out as true and reliable.

 

[Tumah]

No, I wasn't... or at least, the message I take from what you're saying is false. I don't think you're realistically portraying religious ministry or proselytizing.

You'll have to explain why not.

...which he holds out as true and reliable.

Which is also representative of his religious beliefs.
If a Christian minister started giving sermons based on Hindu theology without notifying his audience, then I think you'd have a case. But both parties are giving and getting exactly what they is expected: Christian theology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You'll have to explain why not.

Religious ministers and proselytizers actually do make claims about the real world.

Which is also representative of his religious beliefs.

Do you think this somehow negates my point?

People who convince others that their opinion is reliable share in the responsibility when their opinion is relied upon. The original source of those opinions doesn't change this.

If a Christian minister started giving sermons based on Hindu theology without notifying his audience, then I think you'd have a case. But both parties are giving and getting exactly what they is expected: Christian theology.

If you think this is relevant to our conversation, then you're having a very different conversation to the one I'm in.

 

[Tumah]

Religious ministers and proselytizers actually do make claims about the real world.

In the context of their theology.

Do you think this somehow negates my point?

People who convince others that their opinion is reliable share in the responsibility when their opinion is relied upon. The original source of those opinions doesn't change this

I think that's only true if you can demonstrate that the "victim" didn't understand that what he was being taught was under the guise of Christian theology.

If you think this is relevant to our conversation, then you're having a very different conversation to the one I'm in.

I won't discount the possibility, although there is also the possibility that you didn't understand me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that's only true if you can demonstrate that the "victim" didn't understand that what he was being taught was under the guise of Christian theology.

So religion gets a free pass from normal responsibility?

 

[Tumah]

So religion gets a free pass from normal responsibility?

If you work your interpretation of "normal responsibility" to specifically exclude cases where religious entities express themselves, than yes.

 

[Milton Platt]

In Canada (and I believe many other countries), there's a legal concept called "negligent misstatement": someone who puts themselves forward in a way that suggests his or her opinion is reliable has a special obligation to ensure that any opinions they express publicly on the area of their expertise are well-founded. For instance, if I as an engineer say that an unsafe building is structurally sound, I can find myself liable if it comes out that I had no real basis for what I was saying. OTOH, if a non-engineer expressed an opinion that the building was safe without justification, their liability would be much less (or maybe zero).

Applying this principle more broadly, I draw a distinction between two classes of religious believers:

- everyday believers who happen to have become convinced that their religion is correct.

- proselytizers, evangelizers, and ministers who present religious beliefs to others as reliable, either to convince them to adopt the religion or to keep them in the religion.

Now... I'm not suggesting that ministers and evangelizers be legally liable for their preaching, but it seems to me that those who try to convince others of their religious beliefs are ethically obligated to have good support for those beliefs in a way that the typical congregant in the pew isn't.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

I do think that Anyone (including clergy) should be legally bound by their statements when they project them as "truthful" and encourage others to accept and act upon those "truths". Religious organizations enjoy an unprecedented kind of tax break not given to any others, including other non-profits. They are not required to provide any sort of fiscal transparency. They should be held VERY accountable for what they push as "truth".