There is no distinct observable line between the rational and irrational. This is not to suggest that such a distinction does not exist. Most people uphold at least one belief that would be regarded by some others as irrational.
Debating this alone, of course, is all academic. But at which point should we intervene to change somebody’s beliefs, if at all? We are passive to many ‘irrational’ beliefs of others but others. Could it be considered that all beliefs are valid?
I overheard a conversation a couple of days ago consiting of the words ‘I think we all have to have a guardian angel over us’. I felt inclined to refute this completely, but I don’t always have the heart. If one were to believe that a piece of stone was God and were perfectly happy doing so, would we intervene?
On a deeper philosophical note, one could of course argue that the idea of rationality and irrationality is not a fundamentally coherent idea. However, I don’t want this thread to become bogged down with this type of argument too much. The reason I put this thread in religion is predominantly to ignite discussion on the rationality of religion. But feel free to digress if you like.
At which point do we intervene on irrational behaviour?
You intervene on what you think is irrational behavior when you are irritated with the behavior enough to get involved with another human being, or when you are involved enough with a human being to the point where their behavior is worth invested concern by you.
Well, one civilization fed some people they thought were irrational to predatory animals or used armed people in an arena to kill them. The end result was that empire becoming the head of that religion for those irrational people who died for their belief and still is today.
That would generally be my answer to the question too. But do we leave the individual who idolises his a rock? Let’s say they are perfectly happy and would remain so through the rest of their life.
This is also a fair answer in terms of a personal basis, but what about speaking ethically?
What specifically were they doing for their behaviour to be construed as irrational?
That still depends on your proximity to the individual emotionally.
If you are driving by and see some random guy everyday praying to a rock on the ground, would you stop and try to figure out if he’s in need of help, and then if so try to commit him to seeking the help you think he needs; all the while sticking with him through the fights, anger, sadness, confusion, pain, and not just the joys?
That’s the question that is the measuring stick. Your answer is the value of measurement on that measuring stick.
Ethics (meaning societal guideline for acceptable fluctuant human behavior in mass) are simply those things that help preserve the survival rate of human life in the most profitable manner to the societal capacity for providing the opportunity for luxury.
I can’t alone answer any ethical questions.
Only the mass can answer that.
At the moment, the mass answers to letting scientific psychologists determine the matter of sanity, and that psychological society doesn’t hold that the religious adherence is any threat to sanity under most guidelines understood to allow for consent of will as determined by the law.
As such, I can only stand by this and say…shrug…honestly…I hope I’m not alive when that changes.
That world is going to look really ugly; really fast. Regardless of which direction that stance changes.
We’re riding a dangerous high wire act in holding the capacity to determine sanity on a theological reinterpretation of human will.
I’m not so sure it was for what they did as much what they represented…Christianity. Rome in later years became the site for one of the largest religious organanizations. Somewhat ironic…
You can discuss beliefs with people, point out fallacies and offer alternatives. You can’t really change people who don’t want to change.
I image that the intervention of the OP refers to something like ‘cult deprogramming’ where a cult member is kidnapped and over the span of several days is subjected to mental assaults intended to destroy the cult belief system. There are lots of cults around but the main religious branches are not cults. Cults are characterized by an extreme control over an individual, both physical and mental control.
Yeah, but then again…the standard definition of a Cult legally does make it rather easy to parallel the United Sates Armed Forces and Monastic practices as Cults; strangely enough.
Agreed. I’m just saying that the ethics of a forceful intervention become more complex if you believe someone is being coerced. Is someone acting freely on an irrational belief or is something more sinister involved? And how can you tell what someone else feels about the particular situation?
You can’t.
We try to figure it out as best as we can, and that’s what we roll with.
Honestly, most religions had, or have, their cult-like states at some point according to their embedded society.
The only thing that really makes a cult a cult, as far as I’ve ever been able to determine, is that:
A) the devotion to the belief required is beyond the understandable tangibility of the society that it is embedded into.
B) the belief is irrational to the society it is embedded into.
C) the requests of the adherents are viewed as disproportionate to the grants to the adherents, according to the perception of the societies values that the belief is embedded into.
Then there is the red flag definition:
D) the belief requests personally harmful actions from the adherents disproportionate to the grants to the adherents for reasons that are extremely irrational to the society the belief is embedded into.
Thereby, military forces are not seen as cults because the reason for asking the adherents to place themselves in harms way is justified by an understandable and rational reason as far as society is concerned.
If, on the other hand, someone else claims to be the messiah of the end of times and wants to amass an armed defensive for isolated secession from the society that they view as threatening to their eternal salvation…well…then they are viewed as a cult because their reason for placing people in harms way rests on a reason that is irrational to the society it is embedded in.
It is certainly true that it depends on the proximity to the individual. If you see a madman on the train you tend to veer away from them, whereas if it was a loved one you may intervene. However…
I suppose the point of the OP was to get your personal subjective opinion on what the ethics of the respective situations is and what you yourself would do. A non-abstract view at morality, if you like.
I often like to invite jehova’s witness individuals who come calling into my house, and I challenge them on their beliefs whilst simultaneously allowing them to attempt to persuade me. I thought to myself the other day ‘is this just academic, or am I really trying to alter their beliefs (and essentially shatter their dreams)?’ And I have to say, it was definitely the latter. I think it was because I felt sorry for them.
Whilst this is a good example, it is also a radical one. Consider what I said in my OP:
I really wanted to butt in and throw a load of arguments at the lady, but it would be like spitting in hher face essentially. But what right would I have to do that, right? How illogical does the belief have to be before we say ‘you know what, you are misled’. Sorry if you believe in guardian angels, btw. I am just making a point.
I figured that old ladies believing in angels doesn’t really give much cause for intervention.
There is a lot in the papers about polygamy cults. Are the women coerced? Many are forced to marry at a young age and the husband is selected by the leader. They have few places to turn if they wish to leave their husbands. Their entire lives are lived in these small, isolated communities. Are children harmed when they are born into this situation? Polygamy is officially illegal but it is difficult to prosecute these cases.
I’m a simple man on subjects of emotion.
If it’s morality we are discussing, then I act if I give a shit about them.
If I do not, then I pass.
If we are talking about ethics, I have no comment.
I never do.
People ask me shit about it all the time.
What’s your view on abortion in society, what’s your view on the death penalty, what’s your view on polygamy in society, what’s your view on same sex marriage…
It is the same with each.
Does the choice belong to me to make?
Or is this a choice that belongs to the person making the choice?
Let them make that choice and live with their own morals.
I have, literally, no means of comprehending how to start measuring what the moral values should be of other peoples when morals themselves are purely emotional justifications.
My stance on law is, if the law is there; abide by the law.
If you want to fight the rule, break the law, or challenge it.
I am not such a person though.
I don’t care about telling others what they should do or should not do.
And I’m certainly not qualified enough to determine the sanity of a human being officially.
Hah, I guess I agree otherwise I wouldn’t have kept my mouth shut I guess.
You seem a lot more apathetic than I anticipated. Anyway, that was the kind of conversation I was looking to extract on this thread really.
In terms of the classic debates like abortion and such, I do enjoy them but I find it hard to be passionate about them because both sides have good arguments so the debate is never consummated.
I wouldn’t call it apathy, honestly.
It’s more stalled.
The question is asked, my brain spins in confusion because it has nothing tangible to latch on to; just a grey abyss of subjectives.
There’s too many factors, and my emotions do not engage to aid in helping me decide an otherwise ambiguous question like my emotions do in personal cases.
So it’s more a result of, “…um…I don’t know…system malfunction.”
Now, if you were to ask me how I would govern a society…that is a radically different question.
No one should ever ask me to lead anything such as political forces.
I’m far too monarchical and utilitarian in respect to leadership, and from what I can determine; people really seem to hate that.
I see, this is a perfectly understandable conclusion to derive from studying ethics. Still though, ethics continue to interest me as a human being, regardless of the fact that I loosely agree with you in terms of the existential status of ethics. Anyway, as I mentioned before, the thread was really just to observe differing opinions on varying situations. Here is a more elaborate example of the man who loves his rock -
A boy is born and has a very normal life, having received a standard education and had very little trauma in his life. At the age of 18, he decides with no real evidence that a rock he finds on a beach is God. There is nothing special about the rock; he picked it up at random. But he believes it is God and the creator and controller of everything. He is an independent and affable individual whenever he encounters others, pays his way and keeps himself healthy. However, in his spare time he prays to his rock and preaches the ‘Rock’ doctrine to others which he has created on behalf of the rock. Furthermoe, he devotes ALL his spare time to the rock after he has done any necessary deeds for the day (eating, work). He doesn’t direstly harm any others but is essentially what one might describe as a very insular man.
The first part is pretty much what Stumps was saying earlier and is certainly a clear determining factor. The second part is also reasonable.
But my question to the both of you is this; should there be a human right to have somebody intervene in irrational beliefs?
I would say there is to a degree, which I can elaborate more on if you like. But I’m really more interested on others’ views on this one.
Incidentally by the way, I think the current system for determining madness is quite robust from what I know of it, and psychology has made huge advances in the last 100 years.
Intervention towards irrational behaviour is essentially pointless, because no line can ever be drawn. The only way to remain consistent would to be completely passive on all subjects or to do everything you can to obtain absolute power over the world and then dictate from there on out.
If I say I am going to intervene on someone’s life because they (x) but then I continue to let the government run amuck on the same issue without actually doing something that results in effective intervention and change, I’m just a hypocrit. If I hold a religious structure blame for some wrong doing in my life but then allow my own religious beliefs to inflict the same amount of wrong doing to others, I’m just a hypocrit. If I tell my kids that smoking is bad for you between puffs on a cigarette… so on and so forth.
What it really boils down to is that human beings are irrational. To intervene on ourselves, truly, is quite literally impossible. You might as well start telling kittens to stop acting like kittens. To try and establish some sort of line that discerns acceptable irrationality from unacceptable irrationality is arbitrary.