Ethics (Religion)

by Carl, Saturday, October 04, 2008, 17:46 (5702 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw previous post discussed the effects of religion on morality and society.
I am aware of "faith based" charities, but I have never heard of an "atheist based" or "agnostic based" charity. Organized religion can help people of good will leverage their generosity. I am a strong supporter of the Salvation Army, even though it's motivation is pure Christianity. Whether religion actually causes people to be more generous or merely facilitates it is a question. The idea that Jesus is watching has to be a motivator for some.
Religion increases group cohesion within the group, but increases feelings of alienation with other religious groups. I have lost good friends who became born-again Christians and were told they should avoid social contact with heathens, as it would hinder their spiritual growth. In my ideal world, a persons religious affiliation would be like membership in a social organization, but that's not what religion is. Secularists like myself have to fight the insidious suspicion that religious folk are just pretending for public appearance and don't really believe what they profess. That, of course, is not true. On a social level, religion enforces homogeneity within the group and a territorial attitude toward others, an attitude suited to survival of the fittest.
Dhw and I are in agreement on opposition to capital punishment, but my opposition is not to the effect on the criminal ( though that is profound), but rather the effect on society. It does not move us in the direction we need to go. World society should move toward less violence of all forms, and toward more human dignity and individual freedom. When people surrender their right for personal revenge to the state, the state assumes an obligation to pursue that revenge in the form of justice. So the victims and survivors have a right to some type of justice. Also, punishment for bad deeds still seems appropriate to most of us, even if psychologists tell us that a child killer is just a good person who did a bad thing. But execution coarsens society by holding that violence is the proper response to violence, rather than holding that the elimination of violence is the objective. The objective of society should be to minimize the use of violence to that necessary to ensure human freedom and dignity.
A prime example of this is the war on drugs. Violence is met with violence, and here in the U.S. the violence on our Mexican border over the drug trade has escalated to open military weapon battles between cartels and the law. Billions of dollars in illegal drug money is being funneled into organization run by the cartel rulers, the most vicious and depraved of the vicious and depraved. It will do nothing but escalate. Considering the amassing of enormous fortunes by our most violent criminals, the corruption of our justice systems by this money and the havoc wrecked on the lives of families unfortunate enough to have a member caught up in illegal drugs, a legalized, controlled, taxed, violence free drug system would be far better. I do not use drugs, and I am not a fan of the drug culture, but I feel that the damage to individuals and society at large would be greatly reduced by a controlled drug system with a strong anti-drug education and treatment program. It'll never happen.