tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post2931657272717349263..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Shrillness of the New AtheistsAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-70957385418345231262010-08-18T22:09:13.555-06:002010-08-18T22:09:13.555-06:00Most religious parents do not fit this category be...<i>Most religious parents do not fit this category because it is not morally culpable to adopt a view that is extremely widespread in one's society. It may be a logical fallacy, if 85% of the people are making an assertion, to adopt it for that reason. But it is a logical fallacy we all have to make use of at some point.</i><br /><br />I <b>strongly</b> disagree with this statement. If a view leads to evil, and that a "reasonable person," upon reflection, ought to be able to recognize that evil, then it's still evil to hold that view even if it is common. Otherwise, we can't hold pre-American Civil War slaveholders morally culpable for their views on slavery, Nazis for their Nazism, Soviet Communists for their Communism, or any other such widespread belief.<br /><br />In other words, sometimes it really is morally wrong not to question a widespread belief.Doug S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-64600718993192269982010-08-17T16:25:11.875-06:002010-08-17T16:25:11.875-06:00Irresponsibility is a muddy concept that, I would ...<b><br />Irresponsibility is a muddy concept that, I would argue, just begs the question.</b><br /><br />Any definition of what qualifies as abuse is going to inevitably involve some "muddy" concepts. Abuse is not the sort of concept that has distinct edges. There's a grey area where one passes from bad parenting to abuse and no two reasonable people are likely to have precisely the same opinions as to what is one and what is the other. I think that's something we're substantially in agreement on.<br /><br />On the other hand, this....<br /><br /><b><br />It is not a culpable error when a person picks up a belief that 85% of the people share.</b><br /><br />I have to strongly disagree with. What is or isn't abuse is not determined by popular vote. If 85% of people (whether in a given community or the entire world) believe that female genital mutilation is good that does not make the practice any the less abusive.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-48300005095236879472010-08-17T08:11:32.536-06:002010-08-17T08:11:32.536-06:00I think the best refinement I can think of is to s...<i>I think the best refinement I can think of is to say that abuse can be the result of a desire to harm children, a lack of concern for their welfare or simply from irresponsibility</i><br /><br />Irresponsibility is a muddy concept that, I would argue, just begs the question. It does not answer the question but shifts the question. Instead of trying to find a way to distinguish between abuse and non-culpable harming, we now have to find a way to distinguish between responsiblity and irresponsibility.<br /><br />Again, I would argue that the distinction rests on whether the actions demonstrate a lack of concern with being right in issues affecting the welfare of others.<br /><br />It is not a culpable error when a person picks up a belief that 85% of the people share. That is "good enough reason" morally speaking for adopting a belief. But it is a culpable error to adopt an extreme position that 95% of the people diagree with.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-57128455447506881872010-08-16T14:47:51.624-06:002010-08-16T14:47:51.624-06:00However, they neglect the fact that "abuse&qu...<b>However, they neglect the fact that "abuse" requires a desire to harm children or a lack of concern as to their welfare.</b><br /><br />I think the best refinement I can think of is to say that abuse can be the result of a desire to harm children, a lack of concern for their welfare or simply from irresponsibility (into which category would fall Christian Science parents, parents who drive drunk with their children in the car, etc.).David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39444515530891036982010-08-16T13:04:10.677-06:002010-08-16T13:04:10.677-06:00I would respond that the "willful" part ...<b><br />I would respond that the "willful" part of this represents a lack of concern with the truth or the consequences of the truth - they do not care.</b><br /><br />One cannot look on the emotional struggle Christian Science parents go through when they find themselves in a position where their faith is in conflict with their child's well-being and conclude that they simply don't care. Situations involving human minds, emotions and decisions are just not that simple.<br /><br />I would put the distinction this way: we have a moral responsibility to act according the the best available information regarding what will promote our children's well-being. Embracing a belief on no rational grounds does not absolve one of this responsibility nor free one of moral culpability for harm resulting from one's embrace of those beliefs.<br /><br />Beliefs ARE a matter of moral concern. It's for this reason that, though I don't agree with Dawkins position on religious instruction as abuse, I don't think he's entirely off base either. <br /><br /><b><br />You need some way to distinguish the person who does morally culpable harm from morally non-culpable harm.</b><br /><br />Indeed. And I don't claim to have worked out the best criteria for deciding what is or isn't legitimately to be called abuse. What I do think is obvious is that the criteria you proposed exclude cases almost any reasonable person would consider abusive.<br /><br />What I propse above as a refinement of your proposed criteria is, I think, a step in the right direction. But it should be examined against difficult test scenarios to work out if it actually holds up.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43221587169244286202010-08-16T12:37:06.286-06:002010-08-16T12:37:06.286-06:00David B. Ellis
You need some way to distinguish t...<b>David B. Ellis</b><br /><br />You need some way to distinguish the person who does morally culpable harm from morally non-culpable harm.<br /><br />You wrote, "Actions resulting from egregious, willfully blind stupidity can be abusive."<br /><br />I would respond that the "willful" part of this represents a lack of concern with the truth or the consequences of the truth - they do not care.<br /><br />Most religious parents do not fit this category because it is not morally culpable to adopt a view that is extremely widespread in one's society. It may be a logical fallacy, if 85% of the people are making an assertion, to adopt it for that reason. But it is a logical fallacy we all have to make use of at some point.<br /><br />The difference with "willfully blind stupidity" that you have mentioned is that these people adopt absurd beliefs without having any type of excuse for doing so. That only happens to people who are reckless in informing beliefs, and recklessness is a lack of concern over the consequences.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-66991919156701036832010-08-16T10:11:38.307-06:002010-08-16T10:11:38.307-06:00Some new atheists have taken to calling the act of...<b><br />Some new atheists have taken to calling the act of teaching religion to a child "child abuse". I suspect that they like this term because of its emotional power. However, they neglect the fact that "abuse" requires a desire to harm children or a lack of concern as to their welfare.</b><br /><br />Although I (mostly) agree with your main point, I think you're in error in saying that abuse "requires a desire to harm children or a lack of concern as to their welfare."<br /><br />Christian Science parents who pray for their children while they die of illnesses that could be easily cured with a trip to the doctor are clearly being abusive but do not desire to harm nor lack concern for their welfare. Actions resulting from egregious, willfully blind stupidity can be abusive.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.com