Multicolored Lemur

Well-known member
Atheist / Agnostic
Nov 23, 2021
702
260
780246


Itzhak Stern on the left, Oskar Schindler on the right, when the two men had not seen each other for four years


————————

Oskar was a pretty regular Catholic, which means largely non-observant. He saved about 1,100 Jewish persons during the Holocaust. And his motives were, well,

complicated.

I think he liked being a big shot. I think he liked pulling a fast one over on established authority. Plus, I think he felt normal loyalty and reciprocity to those who, like Stern above, had helped him start his business. And then, I think he thought the anti-Jewish part of the Nazi program was just plain stupid.

In general, I would say we can fairly accurately put forward the idea that his actions and motives were neither helped nor hindered by religion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2Dbunk
MV5BYzA5Y2Q2YjktZDYwMi00NTdmLThlMjctMmY5NDgwOWRhZDUxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODE5NzE3OTE@._V1_UY1200_CR90,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg


From what I’ve been able to look up, this movie which opened in U.S. theaters in Nov. 2019, was largely accurate. The Battle of Midway on

June 4, 1942

turned the tide in the Pacific. The U.S., with its greater industrial base, probably would have still won against the Empire of Japan. But it would have taken longer, and been costlier in terms of human life.

Most of these people were probably religious in the normal sense of marriage and funerals. Meaning, religion was one thread in their lives, but not a dominant thread.

A minority were probably very religious in terms of daily prayer, and going through periods in which they have daily devotionals and then periods in which they don’t. But only a pretty small minority.

So the motives for most?

Don’t want to be pushed around. Especially by some external group, and esp. when we know of their track record of tyranny.

You want to be found good enough as far as having enough courage and readiness during a time of crisis. You want you to be a contributing part of the group and stand together with others — this is a very powerful motive.

The American women who joined the WAVES and WAC also showed courage. And the women who stayed on the homefront showed their own type of courage (as is depicted in the above movie).

And again, none of this particularly has much to do with religion.
 
Last edited:
4175bfOhvUL._AC_UL600_SR600,600_.jpg


This 1977 book is the best book I know of in the English language on the topic of ethics.

Generally takes a utilitarian, or the principle of utility, viewpoint:

That happiness, broadly defined, is the only intrinsically good outcome in the universe, and that suffering, broadly defined, the only intrinsically bad outcome. And that the point is to act to most improve the future package of experiences — for all sentient beings.

Might be dry.

But might help us get past some stuck points.
 
Last edited:
b083e06c-52e2-445c-885b-abe4db2a658b_1.d912fe708808e8f147e1a39b9afe00d3.jpeg


Just the fact that Dr. Klass is a doctor, seems reasonably honest, and writes well.

That gives us a healthy interplay between theory and practice — which is too rare a thing in our modern world!


50489343._UY400_SS400_.jpg
 
Itzhak Stern on the left, Oskar Schindler on the right, when the two men had not seen each other for four years

————————

Oskar was a pretty regular Catholic, which means largely non-observant. He saved about 1,100 Jewish persons during the Holocaust. And his motives were, well,

complicated.

I think he liked being a big shot. I think he liked pulling a fast one over on established authority. Plus, I think he felt normal loyalty and reciprocity to those who, like Stern above, had helped him start his business. And then, I think he thought the anti-Jewish part of the Nazi program was just plain stupid.

In general, I would say we can fairly accurately put forward the idea that his actions and motives were neither helped nor hindered by religion.
I can't figure out what the topic is. Please be sure to post a clear debate topic or question in the first post. It should be limited to one topic. This makes it easier for readers to understand and follow the conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
I can't figure out what the topic is. Please be sure to post a clear debate topic or question in the first post. It should be limited to one topic. This makes it easier for readers to understand and follow the conversation.
Thank you for telling me this. I tend to be a “pattern recognition” type of thinker, which has its advantages, but can also mean hard to follow.

And I really want help expanding an idea, rather than just debating the early steps. Although that is fine also.

Main Thesis: Religion is not the only source of morality. Even if we’re talking about early life foundational things, there are still many things which go into a person’s moral landscape.

And as a more minor point, I have my doubts about whether a one-dimensional, super logical approach is the way to go, be it one particular religion or one particular philosophy. I’d rather place on the table a number of positive examples — actions which I think most people would generally regard as positive — and then ask, okay, what are some things they share in common.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
Main Thesis: Religion is not the only source of morality. Even if we’re talking about early life foundational things, there are still many things which go into a person’s moral landscape.

And as a more minor point, I have my doubts about whether a one-dimensional, super logical approach is the way to go, be it one particular religion or one particular philosophy. I’d rather place on the table a number of positive examples — actions which I think most people would generally regard as positive — and then ask, okay, what are some things they share in common.
I believe that you can have morality without God. I also believe that someone can be moral (as in being good at being morally good even if not perfect) without God. I think one of the big challenges for any moral system is showing which one is right amongst all of the different systems. The only advantage religious systems might have over secular ones is a sense of reverence and of getting people to act beyond their selfish ambitions. The moral standards are more respected in that sense.

But knowing that moral standards are derived from us or some group of experts, even outside of religion, takes away that reverence. Otherwise, the advantage that secular morality might have over religious ones is more flexibility to adapt to changing conditions. This way, you don't feel as restricted as some might under religious moral systems.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
. . . I think one of the big challenges for any moral system is showing which one is right amongst all of the different systems. . .

And you and I both realize, of course, that most people don’t spend a whole lot of time thinking about different systems of ethics, right?

I think most people focus on things, like the electrician who recently emphasized to both my parents and myself, that he’d take a look at the damage on Thursday and then be able to give a time projection. I’m think as a seasoned guy he’s learned through long and bitter experience that if he gives any kind of time projection, no matter how tentative, people latch onto it much more than they should.

So, people focus on doing better at their jobs, as leaders and volunteers of whatever organization they’re involved with, including church.

And especially as parents.

I mean, parents of toddlers really want to spend time talking with other parents of toddlers, all the way up the age range, until . . .

This starts to come unraveled during the teenage years. For example a Dad will, instead of welcoming his teenage son becoming a young man, resent him and at times resent almost everything about him. And a Mom will sometimes wage war against her teenage daughter, sometimes even more acutely than a Dad will against his son. Often the big issue with the Mom is that the daughter is interested in a boy she’s completely against.

It’s sad.

If we were a truly moral culture, we’d be concerned about the shabby, and often flat-out abusive, way in which we treat teenagers. But we feel we have more important things to worry about.
 
As more examples of positive ethics . . .

I like many of the parables of Jesus: the woman at the well, the prodigal son, the idea that whatever you do for the least of these you have done for me, and the widow who gave her last two small bits of money to the temple.

Although this last one may not be all that super practical. There’s no guarantee someone’s going to be there to know and appreciate what she’s done. And it would kind of defeat the purpose if she was counting on that.

================

I welcome similar stories from Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
The-Four-Humours.png

“ . . originated in the works of Aristotle. Hippocrates is credited with developing the theory. It then became a mainstay of medical belief for two thousand years. The Greeks believed that the body was made up of four main components or Four Humours. These Four Humours needed to remain balanced in order for people to remain healthy. . ”

To me, the big complex theory can actually get in the way of figuring things out.