Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Why being against theistic belief is not good enough

What good does it do to focus so exclusively on theism if we understand that challenging otherwise unquestionable beliefs is important across the board? Let us not forget the following preconceptions, which have no reason to be espoused or obeyed:

1. Monogamy

2. Ownership

3. Inalienable "rights"

4. Competition as an ideal, both socially and economically

5. Equality

6. Individualism; ego or self-worship

7. Usury

8. Paper proclamations, laws; absolute decrees which fail to apply context, conditions, or circumstance

9. Deadlines; mandatory attendance

10. Rule by humans -- which are essentially idea agents -- rather than by the ideas themselves

11. Family; love; illogical preferences for fellow human beings at the expense of the rest of sentient life

12. Making decisions based on subjective feelings and preferences rather than rational thought

13. Consumption of meat

14. Sexual reproduction -- a non-consensual act which is solely responsible for all leaks whose puddles we psychologically love to clean over and over while never bothering to actually plug the hole


15. Placing value in uniqueness -- a trait requiring further qualitative analysis in order to be meaningful (a single black person amid a town of racist whites is "unique" in his or her situation, right?)

At the end of the day, ALL preconceptions -- especially those steeped in desire, emotion, and subjective preference -- are a problem. We must promote open, dynamic systems of thought which continuously update themselves as new data becomes available, so that we never become complacent in our daily lives. Religion is just one symptom of this far more fundamental problem.

4 comments:

  1. Re consumption of meat: are you also going to try stopping obligate carnivores such as lions and alligators? Your adherence to a non-speciesist ethics would indicate so.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I always advocate assessing risk, cost/benefit, capacity, feasibility, etc. on a case-by-case basis. So, to answer your question:

    I will try anything within my means (technological capabilities, skill sets, probability assessments, scope of influence) to end suffering where it exists, so long as its termination does not introduce a greater [known] amount of suffering elsewhere. Therefore, no, I will not attempt to stop lions or alligators -- right now.

    However, if it were ever to become technologically feasible, say, a million years into the future, then I don't see why future humans wouldn't do such a thing; in fact, I'd advocate it for the same reasons that I advocate eliminating the AIDS virus: We already allow scientists to deliberately search for ways to cause various strains of viruses to go "extinct," and the end of the genetic line of the common lion is no different in practice.

    Of course, instead of extermination and murder, I'd advocate something like a global effort to spay and neuter the entire animal kingdom over however long it would take (and if it would take way too much time while societal problems persisted, I certainly wouldn't advocate it in the first place; no global effort, regardless of substance, should be initiated until we have a clear indication from analysis that there are no other activities occupying the same time tables warranting the attention). Outright exterminating life on Earth would be needlessly gruesome and inefficient, and if it was highly likely that a slow (but, preferably, managed and regulated) dying out of specific species would cause horrible ecosystem imbalance, that would also be a reason to not go through with any extinction initiative.

    But yes, I do think that neutering lions -- in an environment where selection pressures and other environmental phenomena are stringently monitored -- is, at the least, less appalling than neutering your pets (and then letting them get fat, bored, depressed, etc.!).

    ReplyDelete
  3. I want to append something to the following statement:

    "I will try anything within my means (technological capabilities, skill sets, probability assessments, scope of influence) to end suffering where it exists, so long as its termination does not introduce a greater [known] amount of suffering elsewhere. Therefore, no, I will not attempt to stop lions or alligators -- right now."

    The introduction of more suffering is definitely a reason to not perform an action which terminates other negative sensations, but even where no such suffering results from the action, there will be times where another action might end even more suffering, making it the better option.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What was that? I was too busy challenging theism to listen to your stupid crusade to get rid of a bunch of random bullshit.

    ReplyDelete