h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Re: cracker desecration.... man, he has time on his hands! This is the sort of thing I really don't understand... I mean why bother? why spend your time at this?

I agree with your last post, PP

I disagree with your earlier post however.

I think you're on dangerous ground when you imply that something a parent truly believes must have some validity because of the fervour with which it is believed.

Yes, it is abusive to traumatise a child by teaching them that people they love or respect will suffer the torments of hell; the fact that the parent REALLY REALY REALLY believes it makes not a shred of difference.

The parents who deny their children livesaving medical treatment because they REALLY REALLY, REALLY believe that blood transfusions are biblically forbidden are abusive. As are the ones who kill their schizophrenic children while torturing them to death in an "exorcism".

Their 'belief' makes no difference. The quality of their actions is what counts.

So are we, perhaps, finding at least a little common ground? Religion can be abusive - I don't think there's any disagreement there.

But is religion always abusive? Not all religious people teach about Hell - or if they do, many believe that good people go to Heaven irrespective of their religious beliefs, so it's possible for a child to believe that all their friends and family will go there. If religious education simply means giving children a non-scientific world-view, is that actually abuse?

I agree with Sayamalu that genuine belief is not an excuse for abuse - the most extreme example that springs to mind is the recent spate of 'exorcisms' in the UK - beatings (sometimes fatal) by people who really, genuinely believe that they need to force demons out of their victims.

But at the same time, what can anyone do other than teach what they believe? Is it abuse to refuse your kids an MMR jab (thus endangering their health) simply because the information you have access to is faulty? On the other hand, denying them a jab even if you know it to be beneficial could be abuse, so there's a counter-example where belief does affect whether behaviour is abuse or not.

Perhaps what we need is a clearer definition of 'abuse' before we can move any further? Does a parent have to know their actions are harmful in order for something to count as abuse? If not, who determines what is 'harmful' and how?

Gif

I've been using the OED definition of abuse, up until now. I'll work with a better definition if you care to propose one.

Tough question; is it abuse if you don't know any better?

Part of the answer might include the question of whether one SHOULD know better.

In other words, to claim ignorance in a defense of inflicting suffering on others when the information was there and you chose to ignore it, doesn't cut it in my view.

Hi Sayamalu,

Which raises interesting questions in itself - if someone is raised in a religious community and denied access to information (or threatened with eternal damnation etc if they look at it), can they be held responsible for abusive behaviour based 'chosing' to ignore that information?

In other words, if (hypothetically) someone was raised by a religious community without access to modern science and medicine, would it be abusive of them to carry out a violent exorcism?

NB: I'm not arguing that it is or isn't, I'm just trying to explore whether the definition means what we want it to.

Gif

I'm not sure one can formulate a rule that covers all possibilities. I'm tempted to bring "common sense" into the equation, but that's rarely helpful.

If somebody torures a child to death and claims he thought it would send the child to heaven, I'd have to question whether there are ANY circumstances under which I'd be inclined to give him a Mulligan on that.

A Renaissance doctor who bled a patient, on the other hand, was not necessarily abusive.

What's the rule?

I'm not sure.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at; what's abusive has to be judged case-by-case.

The trouble is that my judgements might be different from yours. So it's not an entirely satisfactory answer.

Gif

No, it's entirely unsatisfactory.

While I'd trust myself to make that sort of judgement, and I'd trust you to be reasonable, I have little or no confidence in the majority of our fellow human beings (the clear exceptions know who they are).

So, some kind of general guideline is needed. Where to start?

I'd suggest we could try bracketing.

At one extreme, we have parents telling their children that Santa Claus will bring them presents. Not abusive.

At the other extreme we have parents who will beat their children to death in the (sincere) belief that they are exorcising them. Clearly abusive.

Somewhere in between we have parents who take children with the potential to be intelligent, rational, productive adults and teach them that science is wrong, and only authority has the right answers.

Which side of the line does that fall?

And what criteria do we bring to the party? I'd reject the issue of the sincerity of the belief to start with. As explained earlier, I see it as irrelevant to the question of abuse. The severity of the damage caused, its predictability, the obligation of the accused to protect the victim...all these ought to be taken into account, it seems to me.

Courts often use the "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person do what the accused did? That would convict most of those accused of abuse committed in the name of religion...if the judges or juries weren't also believers at some level.

So, what do you think? What side of the line does the example fall? and what criteria SHOULD we employ?

Hi Sayamalu,

I think that even that's too simple!

I'd say that sincerity of belief is a factor, so not totally irrelevant. In the example of exorcism, it's totally overwhelmed by other factors if a child is beaten to death, but more relevant if the adult is (say) encouraging the child to pray for good health.

Or then again, you could say that a Christian Scientist who refuses a blood transfusion for their child does at least genuinely believe - compared to a fundagelical who prays for healing and then gives their child paracetamol, leading to asthma. But is belief really a 'mitigating factor' there?

Still not sure what to think on this one. I have the feeling that there's some insight that's escaping me (which is what makes it an interesting conversation )...

If all else fails... I'm a bit of a closet utilitarianist. Violent exorcisms are wrong because they clearly cause harm and have no benefit. Teaching kids to pray isn't, because it doesn't cause harm (or at least, no obvious harm) and may even have benefits if it makes the child happy.

Gif

In this instance, I'm not utterly opposed to applying some form of the utilitarian calculus.

So, teaching a child that science isn't to be trusted but biblical authority is absolute causes a great deal of harm and there is no apparent benefit.

By that standard, the action is wrong, or immoral. "Abusive" or "not abusive" is a semantic distraction here.

But I agree. There is some occult insight; I'm hoping that this discussion might shed some light on it.

On the other issue, I think that sincere belief might, to some extent, mitigate one's moral guilt for abuse; I don't, however, think the abuse itself is in any way diminished or mitigated by the fervour with which someone believes in that which motivated the abuse.

Jeffrey Dahmer's victims are just as dead and digested, whatever demons Jeffrey was wrestling with. And Torquemada's guests suffered agony irrespective of his fervour and sincerity.

We might consider the tormenters' personal guilt to be diminished by assessing very highly the fervour and level of sincerity with which they entertained their delusions, but the acts themselves were clearly abusive.

Just a thought. (I don't have original thoughts very often, so please excuse me trying to derail the conversation slightly with this one )

I said I was a 'closet utilitarianist' because I realise that most people don't like that kind of ends-justifies-the-means thinking. One of the biggest rivals to utilitarianism as a moral framework is Kant's idea that people should be treated as ends, not means - in other words, people are why you do things, not how you get things done.

But in the case of violent exorcism, we are all agreed that this is immoral, but surely the exorcist believes himself to be acting in the victim's best interests? So this would be a case where utilitarianism is preferable to Kant?

Gif

I'd go further; Kant's most significant contribution to mortal thinking was his "Categorical Imperative".

One formulation of which might be: "Act so that the general principle to be derived from your behaviour could logically be restated as a universal rule".

That could be imposed upon the exorcism scenario in either way. As a result, I have to agree that, in this case, the utilitarian calculations make some sense.

I think if we don't assume that utilitarianism is an apologia for the ends justifying the means, but rather as an enjoinment to consider the consequences of our actions, it becomes a little more palatable.

Nicely put.

Gif

Ta.

But we're still missing something.

I think what we are missing is our own prejudices. We don't agree with the 'child killed by exorcism' scenario simply because we don't believe in spiritual posession. If we accept that the exorcist in this case truly believed his actions would help the child and the death was genuinely accidental then this is equivalent to, say, a child being treated by surgery for a congenital heart defect dying during the operation. This is an accidental death during a well intentioned procedure.

If another person with knowledge of a non-invasive and risk free procedure to cure the heart defect reviewed these cases would they then see them as equally misguided and perhaps equally immoral?

While I find the idea of the exorcism abhorrent I would struggle to describe it as immoral within the framework under which it took place.

What I do consider immoral is that that more enlightened people can allow these practices to continue where they have sufficient information and intelligence to recognise the falsehoods which lead to them being carried out. It seems to me we have a moral duty to behave rationally (with due allowance for personality) according to the best available evidence at the time.

F

Screw morals!

Lets make it a little more clear.

Make taking children to church illegal...no a little too strident and throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Moreover we dont need to do anything of the sort just make beating, starving or poisoning children illegal.

Oh hang on we dont need to because they already are illegal. We just need to enforce the widely accepted laws more strongly and slowly there will be less and less cultural acceptance of such things even in situations where people are claiming a bigG given imperative to do so.


Where ideas are concerned its a little tougher. Telling lies to people is what newspapers and politicians do everyday and we havent been able to pin those wriggly little smeggers down so obliterating tooth fairies and angels is going to be an much more difficult task.

Religion needs to be sidelined very carefully and not by force but by showing the benefits of ditching it. Otherwise all that will happen is that it will go underground and people will cling to it all the more dearly. If you took all the heroin off the market tomorrow in a few months all the people who feel the need for it in ther lives will have found some substitute for it.

a very peculiar argument! surely if we say 'screw morals' then there is no argument against the use of heroin? and hence, surely, against the use of religion! after all, it is the 'opiate of the masses'.

so why should 'we' do anything at all, if there is no moral imperative?

-Religion needs to be sidelined very carefully and not by force but by showing the benefits of ditching it.-

My pick for the QOTD

I would say screw ARBITRARY morals. There has to be a realistic rationale for morality. So far, all we've had is 'because I said so' which evolved into 'because the bogey man will get you if you don't' which evolved into 'because the big G will burn you if you don't'.

I tried to teach my kids to look at the consequences of their behaviour. It's like you're playing a kind of game. If I make this move, what will happen next? If I cheat my friends today, will they be my friends tomorrow?

brauncowrider

There is no 'moral' justification against 'the use of heroin'. There is a health justification as it gets you addicted to the stuff.