Open Letter: The imposition of morality and amorality
Dear atheist/non-believer/extreme #equality proponent/cultural believer,
I am writing this letter to you because of the increasing sense that I get from the world around me of what I am writing this letter to address. Let's call imposition. What it does it mean? It means to force-place something on someone else. Now, before I continue, let me say this: the way the world works is complicated. We do things and don't know we do them. We also, in many cases, have to end up doing the things we want to do by eventually affecting the things we don't want to affect. Given the single line of sight that we seem to have in mind, we wouldn't mind that eventuality. It certainly is easy to shove to the side than it is to actually face the true complexity of the world.
There have been disagreements, debates, fights and protests over our collective views (on each side) over the acceptance of homosexuality, pro-abortion rights, the existence of God and such... the list goes on. The views of each person on the same side don't necessarily match with each side's collective view, but are more or less same in spirit. Each side has their own rogue elements as well, as is expected from any large group of common interest.
Now, the crux of the matter - this 'interest'. It would seem that we have completely different such interests, all set within their own paradigms. I shall present our differences and make my case that they are essentially inarguable, one against another, for the reason that they are so different.
Almost the whole lot of you are absolute permissivists. Morality for you existeth not, except for a constructed one that's more a changing alibi that justifies whatever 'morality' be that you wish to keep - premises include the changing times et al. We all have one specific, most basic, set of rules that we follow, whatever be their premise and however briefly we follow them till the next change - full or partial (on whatever premise that may be, as well). Each point in time of our lives has a certain, stone-ised set of rules (not necessarily religiously or socially moral) that we, ideally, morally defend to death. None of us are truly amoral, or moralless, except those people who are indeed, completely shameless. I (who respects that), on the other hand, have a certain moral code that was not 'constructed'. It is widely followed (cue for credibility). I expect you to respect that. Those are our undeniable bases. We come to the table like that. We can come in no other form, and we aren't even close to stepping on toes yet.
The discussion regarding it has to be a religious discussion and must be had on the premise of one. You believe in no morality, except a convenient one, and I in some morality that I didn't construct which has existed since a while. To diss it, we would have to have a debate on the basis of religionism - its nature, benefits, and one that examines religion (after accepting and understanding it, even if just for the sake of argument). We can discuss historical origins, historical significance, benefits, sustainability, and even the old elementary question of God's very existence among other things, but we cannot discuss religionism vs. areligionism because that would not be an equal, discussion. Somehow, that is all we end up doing. You end up imposing your areligionism on my religionism. You're being more moralistic than me, in such a case. Your grounds are:
Rationality (If God could be proved, he wouldn't be whatever God I claim him to be.)
Non-'humanness' (We are all human beings, religious or not, and all systems stand to be abused for which the abusers need to be faulted. That's why a religious discussion will separate true specific religion from abused religion. Throwing religion and God out like the baby with the bath water is not the solution. Religion has become far more integrated into life than for you to do that. There are some religious beliefs which are contradictory to the way everyday life happens. Reconciliation is a little difficult there, but nonetheless it remains a personal decision and doesn't yet breach the limits of individual humanity in most cases.)
Contradictions (I didn't claim perfection. I claim conviction. I'm willing to live with what I've chose. Remember #respect? I reserve the right to remain stupid (however we define it for the other person), as do you. We should leave essential discussion topics, in this context, out of the ambit of discussion.)
Phobia/Hatred (I haven't stoned anyone yet and note the second paragraph of this letter. I am saying what I believe and am exercising my choice to be able to (note the bit on reconciliation in the second point here).)
Universality of tolerance (An example here. There have been some attempts, to make a case in point, of a connection between racism and anti-homosexual marriage for many reasons because it's discrimination of a birth-state of a person. But, no, the two aren't equable. The disagreement comes when we just allow ourselves to say, whenever we feel like, "I, too, want your lollipop" and do what we please, as we please and when we please with no understanding and consideration any else that's connected. And when we disagree on the details in between, we allow ourselves to keep our views and not impose on another. But the 'pro'-homosexuality folk want the others to change their thinking in a rather innocent Orwellian 1984 style (which is what irks them when we don't just simply accept what they say is). As for for those us who impose Orwellian-aly in the other direction, note the second paragraph on this post)
So there.
I am writing this letter to you because of the increasing sense that I get from the world around me of what I am writing this letter to address. Let's call imposition. What it does it mean? It means to force-place something on someone else. Now, before I continue, let me say this: the way the world works is complicated. We do things and don't know we do them. We also, in many cases, have to end up doing the things we want to do by eventually affecting the things we don't want to affect. Given the single line of sight that we seem to have in mind, we wouldn't mind that eventuality. It certainly is easy to shove to the side than it is to actually face the true complexity of the world.
There have been disagreements, debates, fights and protests over our collective views (on each side) over the acceptance of homosexuality, pro-abortion rights, the existence of God and such... the list goes on. The views of each person on the same side don't necessarily match with each side's collective view, but are more or less same in spirit. Each side has their own rogue elements as well, as is expected from any large group of common interest.
Now, the crux of the matter - this 'interest'. It would seem that we have completely different such interests, all set within their own paradigms. I shall present our differences and make my case that they are essentially inarguable, one against another, for the reason that they are so different.
Almost the whole lot of you are absolute permissivists. Morality for you existeth not, except for a constructed one that's more a changing alibi that justifies whatever 'morality' be that you wish to keep - premises include the changing times et al. We all have one specific, most basic, set of rules that we follow, whatever be their premise and however briefly we follow them till the next change - full or partial (on whatever premise that may be, as well). Each point in time of our lives has a certain, stone-ised set of rules (not necessarily religiously or socially moral) that we, ideally, morally defend to death. None of us are truly amoral, or moralless, except those people who are indeed, completely shameless. I (who respects that), on the other hand, have a certain moral code that was not 'constructed'. It is widely followed (cue for credibility). I expect you to respect that. Those are our undeniable bases. We come to the table like that. We can come in no other form, and we aren't even close to stepping on toes yet.
The discussion regarding it has to be a religious discussion and must be had on the premise of one. You believe in no morality, except a convenient one, and I in some morality that I didn't construct which has existed since a while. To diss it, we would have to have a debate on the basis of religionism - its nature, benefits, and one that examines religion (after accepting and understanding it, even if just for the sake of argument). We can discuss historical origins, historical significance, benefits, sustainability, and even the old elementary question of God's very existence among other things, but we cannot discuss religionism vs. areligionism because that would not be an equal, discussion. Somehow, that is all we end up doing. You end up imposing your areligionism on my religionism. You're being more moralistic than me, in such a case. Your grounds are:
Rationality (If God could be proved, he wouldn't be whatever God I claim him to be.)
Non-'humanness' (We are all human beings, religious or not, and all systems stand to be abused for which the abusers need to be faulted. That's why a religious discussion will separate true specific religion from abused religion. Throwing religion and God out like the baby with the bath water is not the solution. Religion has become far more integrated into life than for you to do that. There are some religious beliefs which are contradictory to the way everyday life happens. Reconciliation is a little difficult there, but nonetheless it remains a personal decision and doesn't yet breach the limits of individual humanity in most cases.)
Contradictions (I didn't claim perfection. I claim conviction. I'm willing to live with what I've chose. Remember #respect? I reserve the right to remain stupid (however we define it for the other person), as do you. We should leave essential discussion topics, in this context, out of the ambit of discussion.)
Phobia/Hatred (I haven't stoned anyone yet and note the second paragraph of this letter. I am saying what I believe and am exercising my choice to be able to (note the bit on reconciliation in the second point here).)
Universality of tolerance (An example here. There have been some attempts, to make a case in point, of a connection between racism and anti-homosexual marriage for many reasons because it's discrimination of a birth-state of a person. But, no, the two aren't equable. The disagreement comes when we just allow ourselves to say, whenever we feel like, "I, too, want your lollipop" and do what we please, as we please and when we please with no understanding and consideration any else that's connected. And when we disagree on the details in between, we allow ourselves to keep our views and not impose on another. But the 'pro'-homosexuality folk want the others to change their thinking in a rather innocent Orwellian 1984 style (which is what irks them when we don't just simply accept what they say is). As for for those us who impose Orwellian-aly in the other direction, note the second paragraph on this post)
So there.
Comments
Post a Comment