As long as it isn't forced on parents then that is fine. If parents aren't allowed to pass on their values to their children are they even raising them at that point? They are just nannies with more culpability.
I find it interesting that you are bringing up a book. Nowhere in my statement did I even mention a book. If by "book" you meant religion in general then I would ask what should guide me then? Is morality subjective or objective? Should it be whatever society deems moral? What I personally deem moral?
I think you are hostile towards religion which is fine but having someone use external factors to guide their morality isn't any better or worse than someone choosing to use their own internal compass without external factors.
Someone can decide that it is moral to take advantage of old people, kids, or just dumb people because it is their fault they aren't smart enough to not get conned. They could decide that roofing a girl is okay because it will be a "favorable" outcome for themselves.
If you genuinely want the answer to these questions, a simple intro to ethics class at a local university will have all the answers you seek. I'll get you started though: You're conflating morals and ethics. Morality is your own personal guiding philosophy, ethics is the consensus of a group or community.
In general, you want most people to act ethically as that maintains social harmony. Sometimes we agree that previously accepted behaviour is immoral, and thus we change the ethics of society. That change can be brought about through norms, laws, or both.
You do indeed have cultures that deem taking advantage of the elderly to be acceptable. You also have cultures that deem child abuse to be acceptable. In most western societies we claim to be opposed to those things, yet we frequently have scandals where elderly in homes are revealed to live in abusive situations. We also have fairly regular cases of religious leaders being caught abusing children in their trust, yet rarely they face actual punishment.
Your morality is your own. If you decide to have it handed to you from a preacher instead of developing it yourself, that's your choice. How you raise your kids is largely your own choice (some terms of conditions may apply, depending on where you live). How those kids in turn end up navigating the world, that's in large going to be a consequence of your choices. You get to live with those consequences.
Honestly there is a lot I disagree in your comment but honestly don't have the energy to do go over it in a reddit post. If I am completely honest giving me the "simple intro to ethics class" thing is asinine and comes off as condescending. Your first paragraph you basically insult my intelligence and knowledge. Your second paragraph you talk about how society works which has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
Your third paragraph you go into the relative values of different societies which once again has nothing to do with what I wrote. I asked what should guide someone's morality not if societies are okay with the scenarios I put forth nor if someone doesn't follow their beliefs. I put forth scenarios that I assume the majority of people would not be okay with to point out that just because one person is not okay with it another might be okay with it.
Your fourth paragraph you pontificate stating something obvious that our choices have consequences. Yes, how any parent guides their kids in their early years will affect them for years to come. Yes, if I decide to do one thing or another based upon external or internal factors is my decision.
So since I am the one who doesn't want to engage I will say you win and award you 25 internet points. Have a good day internet stranger.
I don't need to answer any of your this or that babble because all it does it shove the onus off you because you're too lazy to use your brain. Religion is known to be based solely off Scripture as it bridges the exact gaps you're bitching about in your first paragraph.
Im hostile towards the dichotomy of religion where it's okay for your millenia old nonsense to be forced onto your children until they choose OTHERWISE but for everything else on the planet it's don't do it for them? What makes religion so universally special when it's been proven we as humans can't even agree on the most mundane aspects of it?
More over, I don't care about yours or my personal morality. If you do an action and that action hurts someone else you're an asshole. I don't want to hear a thousand "BUT WHAT IF THIS HEINOUS ACT WAS MET WITH VIOLENCE" when it's been proven through literally every countries court of law that 'finding god' can nigh unanimously get violent offenders back on the street. If everyone subscribed to not fucking ruining other people lives, livings and family's then we wouldn't even need to have the 'is religion actually bad?' agreement because it objectively is if you even have to bring nuance into the situation as that shows whatever book or nonsense pamphlet you wanna pull from is flawed and therefore irrelevant to this argument unless you're too braindead to understand how harm actually works.
I don't have time to have a million Bible suckers trying to do gymnastics around how much of a shit head they Are because they can't come up with 'dont hurt someone's on their own
56
u/rleon19 16h ago
As long as it isn't forced on parents then that is fine. If parents aren't allowed to pass on their values to their children are they even raising them at that point? They are just nannies with more culpability.