tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post6300855616051533357..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: E2.0: Michael Shermer: Tribalism and the Free MarketAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-77513258969485805852008-01-27T09:48:00.000-07:002008-01-27T09:48:00.000-07:00Alonzo,My key point is that the trait of dividing ...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>My key point is that the trait of dividing people into them and us, and having one set of rules for them and another for us is fundamentally immoral. It violates the principle of fairness, and perpetrates injustice.<BR/>Every lie is not like every other lie, and to say everyone who has ever lied is now a liar and cares nothing for truth is simply wrong. Tribalism is merely hypocrisy by groups. No matter what rules you use to consign people to groups, once you do it, you start the process of dehumanization which leads to the worst in human behavior, not the best.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39412192628191459022008-01-27T07:40:00.000-07:002008-01-27T07:40:00.000-07:00Atheist ObserverYou read more into my comment than...<B>Atheist Observer</B><BR/><BR/>You read more into my comment than I meant to put in there. First, I was not thinking about making one single out group of all wrongdoers, but different outgroups for each type. Second, I did not see the proposal as actually offering a change over the current system, where we put rapists in one group called 'rapists', thieves in another group called 'thieves', murderers in a third group called 'murderers'.<BR/><BR/>My intended point was merely that we should narrowly focus on those people who do actual harm, and curtail this practice of overgeneralizing harm-doers.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-76060175794631054182008-01-27T07:11:00.000-07:002008-01-27T07:11:00.000-07:00Samuel SkinnerThe news, of course, is not that fig...<B>Samuel Skinner</B><BR/><BR/>The news, of course, is not that fighting takes place within groups, but the types of groups they take place between.<BR/><BR/>It is not just religious groups - such that, if you eliminate religion, you eliminate conflict.<BR/><BR/>In fact, you can eliminate religion, and not even <I>reduce</I> conflict because people will simply form non-religioius groups and keep fighting.<BR/><BR/>Instead of looking to the reduction of religion as a means of reducing inter-group conflict, Shermer looks to trade.<BR/><BR/>Forget about all of this anti-religious stuff, and focus your energy instead on anti-trade-barrier stuff.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-62313061303244612662008-01-26T23:48:00.000-07:002008-01-26T23:48:00.000-07:00Samuel SkinnerUm... if the school system so bad th...Samuel Skinner<BR/>Um... if the school system so bad that this needs to be said? Last I checked all wars are between different groups. If a single group fights amoung itself it breaks up into sides. This isn't news.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-33708126508468964322008-01-26T20:26:00.000-07:002008-01-26T20:26:00.000-07:00I think you meant Crips, not crypts. http://en.w...I think you meant Crips, not crypts.<BR/> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CripsJoshua Zuckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04689961247338617418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-55392703754340898152008-01-26T17:50:00.000-07:002008-01-26T17:50:00.000-07:00Alonzo,I must admit I was surprised and disappoint...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>I must admit I was surprised and disappointed by your conclusion to this piece. “Insofar as we are disposed towards in-group loyalty and out-group hostility, we would be wise to pick the right in-groups and the right out-groups.”<BR/><BR/>Since tribalism is fundamentally a justification for immorality, this is like saying, “well since we’re going to be immoral, here is the moral way to do it.”<BR/><BR/>In all such self-contradictory situations you end up with nonsense. What is the value of creating an “out group” of people who fail to meet our moral standards? Does it allow us to lump together the serial killer with the soldier? The embezzler with the man taking a loaf of bread for his starving family? The mother who lies to protect her child, with the con man?<BR/><BR/>How about it giving us an excuse to throw these undesirables into an unheated prison in filthy conditions because they deserve it?<BR/><BR/>Or best of all, can we give ourselves a pass on our own questionable behavior, because, after all we’re not like “them?”<BR/><BR/>I see no good reason to divide the world into those with good moral character and those with bad, when in reality, few of us are “without sin” and short of psychotics and sociopaths, few are pure evil.<BR/><BR/>My personal response to this proposition is that we should recognize tribalism as something in our nature likely to lead us in immoral directions, and something we should fight against by recognizing each individual and case as unique, and extending just treatment to everyone outside as well as inside our tribe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com