You've suggested that the cons of religion outweigh the pros, but I can't recall you ever parsing such a list. — Buxtebuddha

I can't believe how many times I'm having to repeat this. Where have I said that the cons of religion outweigh the pros?

And how do you know that people are "fine with that"? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Because if they were not they would stop buying the stuff that perpetuates the situation. Fair trade products exist, we don't have to buy trainers made by children, we don't have to buy coffee picked by labourers paid under the poverty line. This excuse of "not k owing what to do" is exactly what I'm talking about, everyone's waiting for someone else to tell them what to do.

If somebody shows that science, democracy, free markets, etc. have given us that same aggregate net loss, we should, and will, discourage them with the same tenacity? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes, what other course of action would you advise we take if someone demonstrated something produced an aggregate net loss of well-being? Ignore it and carry on as we were? Why on earth would anyone advise that?

Where is the scientific evidence for such a claim?! — WISDOMfromPO-MO

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886905001601
"The over emphasis on personal faith as the primary route to salvation had the side effect of valuing a stance over rational deliberation about moral choices" - The Neuroscience of Religious Experience, Patrick McNamara 2009.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01416200903332056?src=recsys - Christian belief is correlated with higher social conformity
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-009 - That rationality derives, at least in part, from the social environment.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00063.x - An article outlining the way religious morality is about protecting social groups and institutions rather than resolving moral dilemmas.

You may disagree with any of these and many very intelligent people have, but please don't insult my intelligence by presuming that I just made up stuff without researching it first.

What does any of that have to do with theism being--or not being--a mental illness?! — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Not a lot, It wasn't myn intention to hi-jack your thread and I'm sorry, I only asked what I thought might be a simple question arising from some comments here and it's turned into a massive debate only tangentially related. I should have started a new discussion. My apologies.

. I explained what your statements imply and why, and you essentially just responded with "No, they don't." It seems we can't take this discussion any further. — JustSomeGuy

And I'm being disingenuous? I wrote what must have been over a hundred words detailing exactly why I disagree with most of the points you made and explained where I accepted you were right about one of them. Every single "no" was fully explained (within the limits of this format). If you disagree with any of my counter-arguments, the general response is to explain why, but if you'd rather join in this wishy-washy generalisation than actually engage with any of the arguments then yes, we have nothing further to say.

You seem to be unwilling to take responsibility for the implications of your beliefs. — T Clark

1. What beliefs? Which of the seven beliefs I have stated as being a summary of my position do you think I am "unwilling to take responsibility for the implications" of? Or are we still playing this stupid game where you second guess what you think I think and then argue against that because if that's the case then have a ball, why not reckon I think some really racist views as well, they'll be really easy to argue against?

2. I've listed what I believe to be a series of facts, some are empirical and others are logical conclusions from the empirical premises. I don't know if you've ever engaged in a proper philosophical discussion before, but generally we look to see if any of the empirical facts might be wrong, or if any of the conclusions might not actually follow. We don't generally look at the implications of what we conclude and then change our conclusions to whatever sounds best.

If you have any serious logical counters to any of the positions I've actually written (rather than the ones from your imagination) then I'd be interested to hear them, otherwise please refrain from making vague generalisation about my character.

Firstly I'm not advocating any position at all, this is the first misconception both you and T Clark have made and I can't understand why. Apart from one mention of my views about faith schools to sonjnana in direct response to a question, I have not once said anything about my personal opinion about the extent to which society should tolerate or restrict religious practices. I honestly haven't the faintest idea why either of you think that you have any idea what I actually think about the restriction of religion.

My entire point I will repeat, is that;
1. it is possible for someone to hold the belief that religion needs to be restricted for the good of society yet to hold this view without any more hubris or certainty than someone who holds the belief that religion is currently restricted to exactly the right extent.
2. If someone were to believe such a thing their moral obligation to act on that belief would be no different to the moral obligation to not act of someone who holds the belief that things are fine as they are.

I repeat, at no point in time have I expressed my own views on the extent to which I think society should limit religious expression.

To the extent to which your post addresses my actual point of philosophy (rather than your wild speculation about my personal judgement);

You have been speaking (and continue to here) as though banning all religious activity is a reasonable option. — JustSomeGuy

No, I have not once said it is reasonable, I have argued it is possible (for public activities) and as such every moral agent has to decide whether to persue such an option.

This isn't accurate. It takes some level of hubris to even believe at all--with any amount of conviction--that you know what is best for all mankind. — JustSomeGuy

No, it does not. It is perfectly possible to have an extremely humble and speculative idea of what might be best for all mankind. For example, one might believe in ethical naturalism which may lead one to a conclusion that the wants of humankind are mediated by biology. They may consider then that what is good for them is probably good for all humanity based on the similarity biologically. Such a person might easily hold this belief with great humility, but it would nonetheless lead them to the conclusion that they did indeed know what was best for all humanity. Likewise someone who believes in a very strict religion such as a jehovas witness might hold their belief very tentatively, but it would nonetheless lead them to the conclusion that, whilst committed to the belief, they would know what was best for all humanity. It is sufficient for them to say that if their belief was right, then then would know exactly what was best for humanity.

that you, as an individual, can singularly affect society in any significant way based on your own personal convictions and actions. — JustSomeGuy

I don't understand what you are saying here. If each individual decided to take a particular position, then society as a whole will have adopted that position, how have the individuals taking their positions not been responsible for the position adopted by society? What you might be saying (charitably) is that in the specific circumstance where you can see clearly that your belief is very much in the minority you could justifiably reach the conclusion that there isn't any point in campaigning, but that's a very specific circumstance, not a general philosophical principle. Democracy is founded on the notion that each citizen expresses their wishes through voting and campaigning.

What I'm saying is, failure to act is not necessarily due to an endorsement of the current state of affairs, as you imply. It can also be due to a belief that one's action wouldn't affect the current state of affairs anyway. — JustSomeGuy

I understand this. I disagree, as above, but I get that it's a reasonable philosophical position to hold. I don't think it's any less hubristic, but it's just as valid as my position.

what forms of religious expression could you be referring to? Preaching? Praying? Worshipping? Teaching religion? Discussing religious beliefs? — JustSomeGuy

As I have repeatedly said, I have not advocated any position in this thread, but since you asked; no, based on my personal assessment of the harms I believe religious practices can cause, I do not think it would be advisable (let alone possible) to restrict praying, worshipping or discussing religion. I do think it would be advisable to restrict religious education and remnant religious influence on the state. But my reasons for reaching the conclusions are an entire thread's worth and totally off topic here.

Every statement in this post underlines, highlights, bolds, italicizes my earlier accusations against your position that you characterized as uncharitable. — T Clark

Great, now I might have a chance of actually understanding your position. Which of the statements do you think are false or do not follow from their premises?

There are not currently laws against teaching unpopular religious principles in the US, therefore the government should keep it's hands off. — T Clark

I already said that, did you actually read my post? Why are you repeating that there no current laws when I just said that the issue is not the current state of law, but the desired state of law?

In the US at least, it is unlikely there will be such laws. That's why we have the first amendment to our Constitution - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — T Clark

A jihadi terrorist's religion is that infidels must be killed in order to bring about an Islamic state. That is the stated intent of ISIS and ISIS is a religious group working on their particular version of Islam. So can the US government not intervene in the murder of infidels because it is the expression of their religious belief?

Any government that puts restrictions on Muslim schools will also put restrictions on expression of other unpopular ideas. — T Clark

This is a risk, but I haven't yet heard an argument that the severity of this risk outweighs the severity of allowing schools to teach doctrines of hatred, for example. Simply stating that the risk exists is not a sufficient ethical argument.

The government tends to put restrictions on unpopular and vulnerable people who go against the status quo. — T Clark

Last I checked the US was a democracy, the government does what it is given a mandate to do by the people. So if the people want to restrict unpopular and vulnerable people (such that they would vote in a government which seeks to do so), then they will do so, law or no law. The power of culture is stronger than any law, so our individual contribution to that culture will determine its course regardless of any restriction put on government.

you need to make clear what your meaning actually is. — JustSomeGuy

Seeing as you're having trouble I will break it down into simple statements.

1. It is possible that religion is harmful to society.

2. Someone could theoretically believe this with great hubris, convinced they are right, or with great humility, accepting they could well be wrong, but nonetheless concluding so on the balance of evidence. The nature of their conclusion does not in any way necessitate the degree to which they believe it.

3. Inaction has no less consequence on the world than action, it is no less a response to one's beliefs and can be carried out (if that's the right word) either with great conviction, or with great doubt.

4. It follows from 1-3 that any moral agent must make a decision about how to act (or refrain from taking action) in the face of their belief about the degree of harm/benefit religion causes society.

5. It is possible to ban all religious activity in public (no-one mentioned anything about private beliefs or private religious worship). It is possible to make religious activity mandatory.

6. People, by the collected effect of their individual actions, are responsible for the laws and customs of their society.

7. It follows from 6 that the decision one must make about one's actions in response to one's belief about the harms/benefit religion causes society will involve a decision about how much religious practice society should tolerate (by which I mean the individual exercising the small part they play in the adjusting the direction of societal laws and customs). It follows from 5 that the range of options any moral agent has to choose from with regards to the direction they wish to exercise their small influence in ranges from "none" (no public religious practices at all) to "loads" (mandatory religious practices)

Therefore;

1. No-one is withholding judgement, everyone has made a decision (at least for the time being) to either act to push society in a different direction, or not act and so leave society as it is, in this regard.

2. The decision we each make has no bearing whatsoever on the degree of hubris or humility with which we have made that decision.

There are laws against conspiracy to promote terrorism or provide support for terrorist organizations. Are the hypothetical schools violating those laws? If not, what business does the government have in putting restrictions on them. That doesn't prevent you from expressing your opposition to the school within the limits of legal restrictions on violence and intimidation. — T Clark

This is nonsense, particularly the bit about "what business does the government have in putting restrictions on them?" Who do you think made the laws? There didn't used to be laws against promoting terrorism, people saw that promoting terrorism was causing, or threatened to cause, harm to society so they exercised their moral agency to decide that the autonomy of people wishing to promote terrorism must be imposed on for the greater good of society. They discussed the matter, campaigned for it, voted for a party which promoted it and it became law.

The first bit is the bit that forums such as this get involved in. Discussing the matter. So it's circular to say that because there isn't currently a law against something we are not morally obligated to restrict it. We're asking the question should there be a law against it? Specifically in this case (the conversation about faith schools) we discussing whether the government should be allowed, by law, to prevent the teaching of certain values, not whether they currently are allowed by law to do so, that's a discussion for a legal forum. To just argue that they shouldn't be allowed because they aren't allowed is silly.

Except that civilization owes itself in large part to the "religious gene." We'd have probably died out as a species many thousands of years ago had we not developed a mind for religious thinking. — Buxtebuddha

This is all a reasonable theory, but it doesn't answer the question I posed. You believe this theory of yours to be the case and so you act on it, that's fine because the actions you would need to take consequent to this belief are mild and in-keeping with society's current attitude. But you're not claiming (I hope) that you can somehow conclusively prove this theory, that every geneticist, anthropologist and neuroscientist out there have all reached the same unavoidable conclusion?

So the question is, what does someone do when their deeply held conviction is not the neat status quo theory you espouse, what if they believe that religion has, in fact, harmed society and continues to do so, but they (like any good philosopher) recognise that they very much might be wrong about that. Do they not act on that belief because of the uncertainty, or do they take the risk and act because of the severity of the consequences they fear?

My interpretation of that statement is that you support forbidding religion. Am I correct or have I misunderstood what you are saying? — T Clark

How on earth did you get that? The statement was "we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences?" Absolutely no mention of my opinion on the matter whatsoever, just a statement of fact that as moral agents, that is a decision we all must make. In fact, where in any of my posts (up to that point) have I expressed my personal opinion on the matter at all?

To be honest I'm glad I didn't. I've already been called an irrational zealot just for raising the possibility that we should not dismiss out of hand someone who thinks that religion might be a bad thing for society.

how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society — Pseudonym


He is clearly proposing that we do not allow, that we forbid, religion in our society. That means significantly more than walking door to door. — T Clark

This is just insane prejudice. Again, how on earth did you get from a statement that we all have a choice to make, to a conclusion that I'm advocating anything at all, let alone going door to door banning beliefs?

The issue I was discussing is what moral duty becomes incumbent on such a person, holding such a belief? Do they act based on their level of uncertainty alone, or do they consider the magnitude of the consequences should the be right but fail to act?

I think we have to consider what the faith school is teaching. If it is ISIS preaching then of course we ban it. But does the degree of belief and it's specific consequences matter? It seems as though the case I am talking about is only harmful in that it encourages forming a world view that may not be rational. And we may also have conversations about how far a belief can go before it is banned. But do you think all faith based schools should be banned? — SonJnana

Yes, like with any moral dilemma in a society there will be a balance between respecting autonomy and restricting behaviour that it detrimental to society. It's great in the very clear cases like ISIS because we can practically all agree and the consequences are clear. What I think has not been addressed is that, given the significant effect of education on our children's development, how do we deal with the possibility that fairly benign religious teaching causes harm by its failure to teach critical thinking, moral responsibility etc. I only mention religious teaching here because this is a thread about how to treat theism (although it's strayed quite far off topic already). I would extend the issue to all forms of poor education.

The issue is this. Somehow we've ended up with a society in which millions are starving whilst others live in ridiculous excess and the majority of the population are fine with that. There's a story (maybe fancified, but it serves a purpose) about Sitting Bull when he first toured with Will Bill's Rodeo. After every show, he would give away all of his wages to the destitute he would be faced with in the towns they visited. He didn't preach about it or reprimand the others for not, but he could not believe that anyone would just walk past a destitute person, with money in their hand, and not help them out.

I'm not saying I blame religion entirely for the extent to which we have become so cold-hearted, but I think that the sense, imparted by religion, that some external authority figure provides you with the answers to moral dilemmas allows people to 'switch off' that sense that Sitting Bull had which made it simply impossible for him to ignore these people.

This is essentially the issue I was trying to discuss. What does one do if one's belief leads to a conclusion where the uncertainty is very high (my theory is shaky at best), but the consequences of being right and not doing anything about is are really severe?

Of course as soon as ISIS are brought up everyone rallies round agreeing with whatever measures are necessary, but something about modern society (capitalism, greed, culture, religion?) causes ten times as many deaths daily as ISIS have killed in their entire tenure. The question is, are we going to throw our hands up and say "I don't know what that's all about" and just let it carry on or are we going to have a serious conversation about what the root cause might be and try to change it?

Thank you for at least attempting to inject some charitable interpretation. No I'm not advocating intolerance, just the ability to express our opinions and try, no matter how futile, to persuade others of things we think are important without being accused of being irrational.

My use of the word 'allow' was poorly ambiguous but would require significant prejudice not to interpret charitably, for anyone to suggest I've said anything in my posts to justify a presumption that I probably want to forcibly ban religion is completely unjustified and I appreciate your effort to provide a more balanced interpretation of my clumsy phrasing.

What I actually meant by it was 'allow' within the moral limits of our actions, which I think is not far from what you suggested. The normal use of the word in fact, as in the way "we don't allow smoking in pubs" doesn't mean we're going to shoot anyone found doing it because that would be immoral. Most of the time people don't have to specify that they're going to stick within accepted moral boundaries when enforcing their use of the word 'allow' but apparently I'm an exception.

I think the only place we might disagree is that I do have quite strong views about religious education and would certainly consider that act of banning faith schools as within what I consider reasonable moral grounds for enforcing what religious activity we should 'allow', but imposing on someone's private practices would for example, be an immoral imposition on autonomy.

The point is, these are the normal moral dilemmas society had to face when balancing autonomy with preventing social harms.

This is insane. Religions have, at best, had a mixed consequence on the world, even the pope does not disagree with that as he has condemned past activities of the church.

Some people look at this mixed consequence and conclude that the good stuff outweighs the bad. I'm fine with that. I disagree but I can see these are mostly intelligent people and the data is, as I say, mixed.

Some people, myself included, look at this mix and conclude the bad stuff outweighs the good. But instead of our detractors being fine with that and accepting that we're also intelligent people looking a complex, mixed picture, I'm told that I'm actually irrational, that no rational person could possibly reach that conclusion, only a zealot as bad as ISIS could possibly reach such a conclusion.

My point was that a rational person, looking at all of the evidence and the history, could only conclude that religion has been a net benefit thus far. — JustSomeGuy

My god, you're prepared to accept that someone might rationally believe that a man walked on water, returned from the dead, parted the seas, but if someone dare suggest that some historians might have reached the wrong conclusion about something as ambiguous as the net value of religion they must be irrational! This is insane, I've nothing left to say to you.

http://bjpo.rcpsych.org/content/2/4/247

There are physiological markers for depression, so although you're absolutely right about the fact that it's only doctors who call it an illness this is exactly the same as any other condition, physical or mental. I don't see it as an unreasonable use of the term illness to describe a physiological change which causes someone significant discomfort.

I believe with great conviction that none of us knows what is best for humanity, — JustSomeGuy

I gather that, but humanity cannot simply stagnate, paralysed with uncertainty so we have to act. You have your own beliefs on which you will act.

But each of our actions affects others, so each person's beliefs will affect you in some way, and your beliefs will affect others, because we act on our beliefs.

I would also argue that inaction is no different to action in the extent to which it affects others (I'm not talking about a moral distinction here, just a pragmatic one)

So what I'm saying is that by failing to act in such a way as to discourage religion, you are expressing your sincere belief that it is at least OK to have religion in the world. You're not withholding judgement, nor being agnostic on the subject. Whatever effect religion has on your society you are deciding with conviction that you are happy to allow that effect to continue, by your failure to act against it.

To put it another way, we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences? How is "none" any less valid an answer to that question than "some" or "loads"? No answer can claim to be more agnostic than any other, each person answering can do so with great hubris or with great humility, what they think the answer is has no bearing on the extent to which they consider themselves to be right.

to view it as having a net negative effect so far is ignoring so much of what religion has done for the development of our societies and cultures. — JustSomeGuy

I'm not sure you're understood the meaning of the word 'net'. It means taking all the good things and weighing them against the bad. What is it about that process that you think ignores the good religion has done? Are you suggesting that you've already carried out that weighing excersice and anyone reaching a different conclusion to you must automatically be wrong regardless of what arguments or evidence they bring? Doesn't that sound a bit like the great hubris you've been vigorously decrying?

I'm sorry, I can't really understand the argument in your response.

I get that you think creeps like Weinstein are listening, we'll have to just agree to differ on that front. Personally, I see him getting out of therapy and trying exactly the same thing but now getting even more of a kick out of it because this time doing what he does has become even more of a social taboo, even more thrill to be had from breaking it.

What I don't understand is what your response to the rest of my post means. You seem firstly to be suggesting that the really crucial question of what physical contact should require consent simply doesn't matter because you personally have never had to deal with it. That seems a strangely short-sighted attitude, I'm sure that's not what you mean but I can't figure out what you're saying here.

Hopefully we can learn together, that way men know the boundaries and women know how to speak up to make it clear and give consent. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I could not agree more with this sentiment, I'd go further to say that this should be a constant process, people change, new generations have new attitudes and they don't always fit with the attitudes of previous generations, but we all have to get along anyway. What I don't see is how you think MeToo is helping this learning process. It seems incredibly one-way, and the vast majority of the sentiment is that men should have known this all along, not that we're learning together what the boundaries are for this particular generation in this particular culture.

So, I'm still genuinely confused about the agnostic, tolerant position you guys seem to be advocating.

I think that Idolatry is really bad for humanity. I think this primarily because it encourages people to absolve responsibility for moral judgements to someone else and I think that leads people to accept acts that we would almost universally see as immoral because they presume 'someone else' must have allowed it and it's not their place to judge. This obviously makes me extremely anti-religious because religions are almost universally forms of Idolatry which advise absolving moral judgement to another agent. Now, I'm perfectly willing to concede that I might be wrong about this, there's very little hard evidence either way and in common with all philosophical theories, it's based on axioms which, if not true, would undermine the whole thing.

But...

The consequences if I'm right are a society which allows immoral acts with relative impunity. We do, indeed have something approaching such a society, where some people are allowed to starve to death while others buy a third sports car. I really don't want anyone to have to live in such a society, I really want a better one.

The consequences if i'm a bit wrong (there's no problem with Idolatry, but there's no God either) if pursue my goal to abolish idolatry with vigour, is that some people get offended, and presuming I succeed, people abandon a comforting (but ultimately wrong) practice of moral absolution.

The consequence if I'm really wrong (there's no problem with Idolatry, in fact it's entirely necessary because there is a God and he knows what's best for us) is that some people will make mistakes in moral judgement which could otherwise have been avoided, but by and large the 'good' moral decisions which we all applaud are considered 'good' by theists and atheists alike, so I can't see how this could matter much. God might get annoyed that we've all abandoned him due to my excellent advocacy for atheism, but I'm sure he can handle it.

Obviously I could also be wrong about all these consequences, but then what would be the consequence of me being wrong about them and acting vs me being right about them but failing to act... and so on...

Basically, what I'm saying is how are you reaching your conclusions that, in the face of uncertainty, the best course of action is to not act with very much conviction on any of your particular beliefs. To me it seems, like any other risk assessment, to be not only about chance (uncertainty) but also consequence. Those risks with a dire consequences are mitigated with more vigour than those with minor consequences even when the uncertainty is high in both cases.

"Is it better to ask for permission first or ask for forgiveness later?" — ArguingWAristotleTiff

But permission for what? All forms of physical contact, anything which could possibly be construed as a sexual advance? That's the question that no-one seems to want to answer. I can't think anyone other than a sociopath would deliberately want to make someone else really uncomfortable, and I can guarantee you that sociopaths are not going to be following the MeToo debate and seriously considering changing their behaviour as a result, they're going to completely ignore it as they have completely ignored social convention in all other fields. Someone like Harvey Weinstein is not listening, So to whom are we addressing these concerns? The people who are listening are ordinary men who have, at least, a moderate amount of concern for the welfare of their fellow humans, and much of what has been said has thrown them into a moral quagmire.

The difference between the two is non-verbal MY hand moving yours — ArguingWAristotleTiff

So how did you get hold of my hand without asking me first? Are hands excepted from this no touching rule? If so, why not backs, knees and arms (all of which have been cited by highly publicised MeToo accusations). If you have a reason for allowing hands but dismissing backs, knees and arms, how are you arriving at that reason and justifying it's imposition on all other humans on pain of public humiliation?

In Victorian times it was common practice to ban a man from even talking to a woman without a chaperone, among the Na people there are no marriages and sex is freely given and taken between all members of the tribe, yet even mentioning sex in front of one's family is considered extremely offensive. The Guajiro people have a ceremonial dance where if a woman trips a man during the dance, they must have sex. The anthropologist John Cowan Messenger reported that people on the Irish Island of Inis Beag do not even allow married couple to see each other naked but rather have sex as fully clothed as possible, for a woman to initiate sex there is considered the height of indecency. Just the exposure of any female flesh is considered immodest in some Muslim cultures. How on earth can we presume to decide what behaviour is acceptable in the face of such massive diversity?

If a man took his shirt off in public in Inis Beag, that would be seen as an unwanted sexual advance, in our culture would be largely irrelevant but perhaps close proximity to another person in that condition would be too much, among the Na or the Guajiro, it would be actually expected of them to do that and much more.

I have no problem with us , as a culture, having a discussion about what we find to be acceptable, and trying to find solutions which minimise the harm done to people who feel uncomfortable whilst still allowing those who do not the freedom to express themselves. The problem with MeToo is that this is not a conversation. It is a particular group, largely of one gender, at one particular moment in time suggesting that some behaviours not only are universally unwanted, but always have been and men should have known better.

I'm suggesting that there may be millions of intelligent people that smartly decide to have an easy life rather than toil. — charleton

Yeah, I tried that argument quite a few posts ago, but without the selective bias angle, nice addition. Unfortunately it fell on as deaf ears then as yours is now. For some mysterious reason no-one seems to be able to escape from the protestant work ethic that dictates that anyone not producing something society will remember them by must be some kind of moral retard. It's no wonder the simple act of child-rearing is so devalued afterall what has any good parent really 'produced', only a really valuable and healthy new member of society, not something really important like a poem!

A quick note to say that this is a misleading cliché. Psychological studies and ordinary experience suggest rather that many women are attracted to men with qualities that "bastards" often happen to have, but which many non-bastards also have: confidence, independence, a lack of neediness, emotional unavailability, and so on. — jamalrob

Exactly, so men looking to attract a particular type of woman are going to attempt to display confidence (including sexual confidence) in order to make themselves seem attractive. The point wasn't to say that these qualities were the sole preserve of 'bastards' but that in some cases they are seen as attractive traits by some women and men tend to disproportionately seek out these type of women for short term relationships despite them being in a minority. Thus it is a misrepresentation to say that men have developed this sexually confident approach just to show dominance despite that fact that all women hate it. That's the point I was trying to make. The cliché was maybe a little hurried, but I did elaborate in my next post.

To dismiss what I've written as mere virtue signalling to me is an indication you didn't read my posts or are being uncharitable. — Benkei

Likewise if you think my reading of your posts had been uncharitable with regards to the exposition of your argument then I apologise. Like I said, I don't think virtue signalling is a bad thing so perhaps did not consider enough the need to give a wide margin of error to my not identifying any supporting arguments in your posts.

I don't accept that studies have established women fall for bastards — Benkei

We seem to be falling, nonetheless into the same pattern. The studies do show that a certain group of women when perusing a particular partner-finding strategy fall for 'bastards', they also show that men disproportionately focus their partner-finding efforts on these women despite their being a minority. You might be able to explain these findings some other way than the psychologists who published them but I really don't see how just saying you don't 'accept' them is helpful here. Do you have some reason you don't accept them? Do you have some alternative interpretation of the data? Do you think the psychologists have just made it all up? Have I completely misunderstood the conclusions?

Are there grey areas? Of course. — Benkei

I'm fully prepared to take responsibility for this if I've not been clear enough but this is my entire point and no more. The 'grey areas' as you put it are exactly what I've been talking about all this time. It's just that I think they are vitally important and disagree that solving them is as easy as you make out.

Nonverbal communication is a vital part of human interaction and in the past this has included physical contact. It comes naturally to me, and many others, to put a hand on the shoulder or back of someone who is upset. I realise this might offend some people, but I'm offended by excessive swearing, others are offended by religious defamation, others by revealing clothing, why have we singled out the discomfort people might feel from physical contact and sexual language as something which requires prior consent when other ways of making people uncomfortable are not similarly addressed?

Through empathy. I imagine whether I'm ever confronted with the type of unwanted behaviour women are complaining about. I conclude it doesn't happen, so there's an inequality there. Then I take at face value it is unwanted because they say so. From there I develop a reasonable idea of what I consider appropriate. — Benkei

Firstly, empathy is a process whereby you imagine you are the other person and speculate on how they may feel. It's an entirely subjective process. How do you know that the people accused of inappropriate sexual advances haven't carried out exactly the same empathy calculation but just got a different result? You're presuming that whatever you would like, must be whatever the other person in the exchange would like. This is not only flawed in that your assessment might be faulty, but in that the other person is probably different from you and has different wants.

Secondly, you're begging the question by assuming that it is a given fact that all women are happy with having to 'say so'. What about any women who like the spontaneity, who maybe want to reserve their own right to make advances on a man and recognise that this requires an equal level of tolerance on their part. Some of the backlash against metoo from people like Catherine Deneuve has clearly shown that such women at least exist, are we to take a single viral campaign on Twitter as evidence for some kind of worldwide democratic vote on the subject?

Do we agree women should not acquiesce to sexual behaviour they consider unwanted? — Benkei

Again this is a complete misrepresentation of the argument against metoo, no-one is suggesting that women should 'acquiesce' to men's sexual advances, what the critics of the movement are concerned about is a climate in which men cannot even make the advances in the first place.

Social norms have made it difficult for women to communicate or report unwanted sexual behaviour and they should be free to do so; e.g. it needs to be taken seriously and without fear of reprisal. — Benkei

This goes back to the point that@JustSomeGuy made. No-one has prevented these women from speaking out. When women wanted the vote, they chained themselves to the railings, there were riots against segregation when people didn't want that any more. We're talking here about women not wanting to lose their job, often a very highly paid one in the case of the Hollywood scandals. Most of what Harvey Weinstein did was actually illegal, not reporting a criminal offence is itself a criminal offence and for good reason. If anyone (man or woman) has let someone get away with a series of sexual assaults potentially even including rape, just because they didn't want to lose their job then I'm afraid I have little sympathy for that particular plight (the reluctance to report, not the assault).

As others have said before, it is deeply offensive to women to see them as these meek ineffective wimps who can't even speak out against some overweight executive who's just groped them for fear of what exactly, reprisals? What reprisals are we talking about? So they might get the sack, well that would be unfair dismissal and they could take the issue up with their union. Much progress has been made this way with child care rights at work, for example.

Essentially, it boils down to the fact that there is a movement out there which is encouraging women to speak out about behaviour that they personally found uncomfortable, some of it is serious sexual assault and some of it is not. The implications of this which I take issue are;

1. A single social media campaign over the course of less than a year can be taken to represent the permanent and universal views of all (or even the majority) of womanhood across the globe.

2. Physical communication by contact and sexual advances are a special sort of behaviour for which you require the other persons consent before engaging in, lest you make them uncomfortable. All other forms of interaction that might make people uncomfortable remain unaffected.

3. Men who engage in physical contact or sexual advances that turn out to be unwanted (other than criminal behaviour) are doing so entirely out of their own perverted desire to dominate and have been influenced in no way whatsoever by the historical responses of any women to this type of behaviour.

Repeating the accussation of virtue signalling just means this conversation is over. I don't accept it and you're crossing a line. — Benkei

I haven't just repeated the accusation, I explained it, and I don't consider virtue signalling to be a wholly bad thing so my intention is not to insult you (which is more than can be said for your intimation that I'm a passive aggressive misfit with some kind of fixation).

Where I do consider virtue signalling inappropriate is on a philosophy forum. We're meant to discuss the philosophical content of issues are we not? Just repeating over and again that men know how to behave and so should do so is not addressing the issue. How do you know men know how to behave? How have you arrived at the set of bahaviours you consider appropriate? How have you justified imposing that set of behaviours on other people? Those are the interesting philosophical questions.

I'm quite prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you have some interesting answers to these, but you haven't stated any of them, hence the virtue signalling. Again, with the best will in the world you haven't exactly done anything to dissuade me from this conclusion by storming off the moment I actually ask you to deal with the complexities of psychological research and cite something in support of your argument.

Come on, I thought this was supposed to be a serious philosophy forum, have I missed something.

"Of course men can't control themselves".

No one's said anything of the sort, the argument is that the behaviour men are being asked to control themselves too has been inadequately defined and potentially oversteps the mark by removing nonverbal communication systems from human interaction.

"Women secretly like it"

No one has said this either, part of the problem with this debate is that it seems to think that 'women' could possibly like or dislike a thing as a whole. There are 3.5 billion women on the planet ranging from nuns to pole dancers, the idea that 'women' want anything as a group is insulating.
Some women may well find all sorts of behaviour attractive. I challenge you to find some universal preference.

"Consent is pseudo-ethical".

Once more, no one has said this, I said that the video was pseudo-ethical on the grounds that it did not address the complexities of nonverbal communication, or the limits of physical contact, something I note still had not been addressed. Simple question, do men have to ask before shaking a woman's hand in greeting, if not, why not?

"It's all subjective tho lol".

Of course it's all subjective, think of the alternative, that there's some externally ordained behaviour we are all obliged to stick to. Who decides on this and with what authority? (another question no one has yet had the intellectual honesty to attempt an answer to)

You read my comments and accused me of virtue signalling because...? — Benkei

Because you appear to be strongly defending a position popularly defined as a moral good without actually having an answer to the difficult moral issues it encompasses. That's basically the definition of virtue signalling. If you had actually answered any of my questions about the extent of physical contact that is to be self-regulated I might have re-considered my assessment, but as it is you've continued to ignore any of the difficult questions in favour of waiving your 'sensitive nice-guy' flag, so I'm quite happy to stand by my assessment.

This is so incredibly silly I don't even understand why you even write it. — Benkei

Because it's based on 20 years study of social psychology and ethics. If you don't agree with it you will find plenty of support for your position in the literature, it's a very contested issue, but presuming anyone who doesn't agree with you must be 'silly' is childish.

First of all, as the psychologist Martin Daly points out in his work on the evolution of human sexual behaviour, men generally seek sexual activity as a goal for contact, women, more often will be seeking a relationship. So to understand male sexual behaviour you have to see it as a culturally evolved response, not to the majority of women, but to the small minority of women who would be likely to respond favourably to the advance. Men principally according to the theory are 'fishing' for a particular type of woman, but crucially, if that type of woman didn't exist they wouldn't have evolved such techniques. This is why we see such an odd disparity between male sexual behaviour and the behaviour women typically want to be subject to.

Studies such as Herold & Milhausen or the 2006 Li & Kenrick study, help to indicate how such responses may have evolved by showing that, in the short-term, such incentives may also be the case for women. Sexual behaviour preference differed for women looking for a brief sexual encounter and those looking for a long-term stable partner, with characteristics signifying social dominance, narcissism and physical attractiveness rating higher for short-term relationships and lower for long-term. Again, once you understand that a larger proportion of men than women are looking for short-term relationships it becomes clear why there is an incentive for men to display the types of behaviour favoured by women also seeking short-term relationships even when such preferences are unlikely to represent the majority of women.

The fact that sexual motivation was initiated by external stimuli and is reward-response driven has been known since Frank Beach back in 1956 and has scarcely been challenged since. If you are at all interested in the subject I recommend "Functional and Dysfunctional Sexual Behaviour by Anders Agmo. Chapter 8 explains all about social evolution of male dominant behaviour, but as I say, there are many who disagree with that model.

So no, in summary, it's not 'from movies', it's based on social psychological studies of human dating behaviour and some background from non-human primate studies. Yes, there's plenty of scope to disagree with these conclusions, many do, but I think it would make for a much more interesting forum if you were to raise your disagreement in logical terms, perhaps citing whatever research evidence you're using, rather than just writing various restatements of your beliefs.

I've read the entire thread, I always do, I'm not sure what it is you're expecting me to have gleaned from doing so, I still see no attempt in any of your posts to understand the ethical complexities of human sexuality, you just seem to repeat the same message that men should know how to behave already and are just being oppressive by not moderating themselves.

Human behaviour is significantly more complex than one dominant group deciding arbitrarily how they would like to behave and all other groups just meekly putting up with it.

Do you really think that men just spontaneously made up this kind of behaviour; that men, desperate to attract women, in their desperation somehow came up with a set of behavioural strategies that actually all women secretly hated but didn't tell anyone until Jack Dorsey was kind enough to invent Twitter.

Men, in their sexual behaviour, by and large try to do things they think women will find attractive and women will do the same for men. For men, historically, that's been to show how powerful you are, to demonstrate your dominance. If you don't agree then perhaps you could explain why rich powerful men seem to have very little trouble finding sexual partners and poor, but very kind, toilet attendants seem to struggle.

Personally, I'd rather live in a world where kindness and what I consider gentlemen like behaviour was seen as a virtue both in a friend and in a sexual partner, but we do not live in such a world and that's because men seem to like being bastards and because women seem inordinately attracted to bastards.

So what exactly do you want people to do when they disagree with a position. Say a new fascist party came to prominence in my country and I disagree with their position on immigrants. Talk me through how I'm supposed to deal with that in a way that doesn't fall foul of your guidelines that I should not in any way infer that it is wrong. I'd quite like the ability to oppose fascism in the strongest possible terms, not sure how to do it without implying they're wrong.

No one's confused about grabbing someone's groin. What's being argued is exactly what level of contact requires consent as you'd know full well if you'd actually taken the ethical debate seriously rather than posturing with virtue signalling.

Do we need to ask for consent before touching a back, an arm, a hand? What about shaking hands? The kiss on both cheeks as practiced all over Europe for years? What about kids, do they get to say whether they get hugged by the grandparents?

Who gets to decide all this? If I want to live in a world where people will just hug me when I need it, or put a caring hand on my shoulder without ruining it by asking first, do my wants not get to be heard in this debate without being lumped in with the perverts like Weinstein?

Like most philosophy it's a lot more complicated than a YouTube video, and if that's ad hominem the so be it.

Fascinating pile of pseudo-ethical crap in both those videos (it almost makes me wonder if YouTube might not be the best source for serious ethical debate, but hey, who am I to judge)

Demanding a universal code before making the effort to self-regulate is obvious nonsense. — Benkei

So what behaviour do men strive for without a universal code? Who gets to decide?

And?

You've just provided a description of the attitude towards social contact held by one section of society. It definitely hasn't always been that way, not everyone agrees even now and I can be pretty certain it won't continue to be that way forever. So how does that have any bearing on my argument that there is no universal code?

I'd also imagine that advocating universal compassion - beyond the narrow confines of the tribe, race, or nation - is something uniquely Christian. — Erik

Christianity does not advocate universal compassion some of the writers in some of the texts which together form Christian scripture advocate universal compassion, others advocate the mass slaughter of every man, woman and child who opposes God's will.

The whole point of this is not to say that there are no positive messages in the Bible, that would be ridiculous, but that the very fact that the messages in the Bible are mixed at best is a problem in its own right. It's the reason why people have been able to justify all kinds of atrocities in the name of religion, because if you look hard enough, the justification is right there in the texts.

We have only one history, it is retrospective determinism to say that because Christianity preached compassion (along with it's justifications for holy wars, inquisitions, witch hunts and child abuse) we could not have arrived at the same point some other way had Christianity not done so.

Furthermore, modern research is finding that deaths from violent conflict simply correlate inversely with population size.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/694568

so there is mounting evidence that the increasingly peaceful conditions society enjoyed as the post agricultural civilisations progressed was simply a result of population size and had absolutely nothing to do with religion of any sort.

The child's brain is wired to make a connection between the limbic system, where fear is felt, and the pre-frontal cortex where we make decisions about right and wrong. "Fear" doesn't require harsh discipline, but enough punishment (which may be nothing more than disapproving expressions and gestures, or being sat in the corner for 5 minutes) for the child to feel that he has something to lose by behaving badly. — Bitter Crank

Here's a lay introduction https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-our-way/201401/punishment-doesnt-work

Here's some of the more in depth work http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0305724840130202

So no, we have not 'been through this already' because you have not cited any evidence to support your argument, you've just stated things you 'reckon' are the case and then responded with an air of exasperation when I don't just agree with you.

Oh very robust. — StreetlightX

Like citing the entire Internet in support of an argument?

The economy being a higher priority than mental health, right? — Noble Dust

Not in my opinion, no, but an awful lot of what I suspect you rely on on, both for necessity and comfort, comes from an economy which, by design, requires that people commit to a degree of unrewarding work which may well be inescapably detrimental to their mental health.

My point was to raise the issue that we may be more responsible ourselves than is often acknowledged in these discussions. But maybe I've misjudged you and you actually live on a self-sufficient commune, in which case, good on you!

I realise this might not be a particularly novel thing to say, but seeing as it is on topic. If you trip over a step at work and break your leg, you can sue your employer, so all steps are now brightly labelled. If it were ever proven that the stress of work caused depression what would happen to the economy?

Are they strong on social commentary then, I can't say I've heard of them!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+internet&gws_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=PyVXWsqTDM2TsAeAj7Ao

No, just didn't have any issue with the rest of it. Treating Theism as a mental illness is an insult to the many intelligent theists who are fully functional members of society. Vehemently believing they are wrong to espouse their religion is something I strongly defend my right to do without being accused of darkening the future of humanity.

Well, if you've still no idea what I'm talking about I'm not sure I can help. I'm very interested, however, in debates about societal norms (it's kind of my job) so I'd be grateful if you could direct me to the public forums where societal attitudes to sexuality are being discussed. So far I've only been able to find ones where women are relating stories of how men have approached them in ways they did not like. That's not a conversation.

or just plain wrong. — JustSomeGuy

So we're not allowed to think other people are wrong now? That's going to make it quite hard to fight of the next Hitler or Stalin. I'm sure they both had everyone's best interests at heart and should have been treated with a bit more tolerance. Damn those interfering allies with their dogmatic beliefs in freedom, equality and justice!