Sandi Toksvig v Justin Welby

[mudsticks]

I am much more cynical than you and believe that eventually with true equality (many) women would treat men, with as much/little disregard as (many) men have traditionally treated women. Nothing wrong with that, it's true equality as opportunity arises and the species evolves.
I do not believe that either sex is intrinsically more saintly/evil than the other, but men's physical strength difference has made it easier for them in the past, when that was more important, and when society was even less enlightened.

So you think that the only reason that women do wayy, less violence, murdering and general abuse is the lack of opportunity??

That we'd do as much, given half a chance??

 

[Rusty Nails]

So you think that the only reason that women do wayy, less violence, murdering and general abuse is the lack of opportunity??

That we'd do as much, given half a chance??

I've never known which side to take in nature vs nurture. On the one hand we are told that boys given guns/meccano to play with and girls dolls/nurses outfits encourages and reinforces stereotypical behaviours, and on the other hand men are naturally more violent.

It's impossible to tell until we get there, but there's thousands of years of the patriarchy that have given men a head start, and the greater physical strength of men would still give them more opportunity for violence, especially to women.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I think you'd have to consider testosterone as part of the equation as well, though I would imagine separating it's influence from the influence of socialisation would be difficult.

If women were socialised in the same way as men are, would they be as physically violent? I'd say not, simply because they wouldn't have the physical strength to enact their violent impulses. Ideally, we'd stop socialising girls to be accomodating and passive, and we'd also stop socialising boys to be aggressive and unemotional, and we'd all benefit.

 

[mudsticks]

I've never known which side to take in nature vs nurture. On the one hand we are told that boys given guns/meccano to play with and girls dolls/nurses outfits encourages and reinforces stereotypical behaviours, and on the other hand men are naturally more violent.

It's impossible to tell until we get there, but there's thousands of years of the patriarchy that have given men a head start, and the greater physical strength of men would still give them more opportunity for violence, especially to women.

There's a bit of both imo, but generally socialisation ses to have a larger part to play in the equation..

Boys being brought up to be aware of and to take responsibility for their emotions, actions, and how they relate to others ..

None of that 'boys will be boys' type excusing of dodgy behaviour.

Nor expecting girls to be passive, and accomodating, or that totally unfair responsibility.."Being a civilising influence"

But of course we can acknowledge that higher levels of testosterone might give rise to a greater tendency towards aggressiveness, and on average larger more muscular bodies.

But those are only tendencies, not a given.
And no excuse for antisocial behaviour.

Nurture as far as we can make out plays the far greater part..
But isn't the whole story.

Nor is it the case that new and better ways of behaving are impossible to learn later in life..

Or at least I hope not.

Otherwise what would be the point of going to therapy, or learning anger management techniques.?

 

[Unkraut]

What is so wrong with having a split in the Anglican world? The more progressive and pragmatic 'C of E' style Anglicanism and the 'Homophobic' Anglicanism?

The Anglican church is split on this. Irreconcilably so imo and has been for a long time, and the primary issue is in the first instance the authority of scripture. When scripture goes against modern society, should you ditch it, especially when said modern society can no longer define what a word like woman means?

Why does the choice always seem to be between being 'progressive' and so-called homophobia? Adultery is a sin, but calling it so does not necessarily imply a hatred of those who have committed it. You may not agree with it, but from the scriptural Anglican point of view men who have sex with each other are alienating themselves from their creator, and therefore are not being loving.

And it's incredibly arrogant to suggest that without Christianity, we would have no moral codes.

It discounts the validity of many of the other religious, spiritual and ethical systems of belief,

If you take all the different types of religious expression in the world, monotheism, polytheism, panentheism etc. then either one of them is true and the others false, or all of them are false. If Christianity is true, the others are false, notwithstanding some doctrinal overlap some of the time.

The basic tenet of avoid harm to oneself, avoid harm to others wherever possible.

That rules out promiscuous sex and abortion if you consider the unborn to be separately human, the acquistion of massive wealth regardless of the cost to others etc. etc. A non preoccupation with self, hardly something a mark of today's generation (self-esteem, self-love, self-actualisation, self fullfillment), although not unique to it of course.

Some of the nastiest and immoral people in the planet all claim to be 'Christian.'

I wonder what Jesus would say about that?

And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.

And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

This will include hypocritical American TV evangelists.

Morals derive from society

Where does society get its morals? What does it base them on? Who gets to decide what is right and wrong, especially the issue Toksvig is criticising the Archbishop for?

I think we are hard wired to do good.

Toksvig seems to agree with you here, but I would have thought the history of the 20th century alone would have made that more or less untenable. I do not subscribe to the view that no-one never does anything selfless or good, but the natural tendency is to be selfish and do wrong, and law is necessary to define and restrain this.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Where does society get its morals? What does it base them on? Who gets to decide what is right and wrong, especially the issue Toksvig is criticising the Archbishop for?

People, and their innate values of what is the right or wrong way to treat the people around them. Not everyone will agree with all of them but there is nothing to suggest that it needs a higher power to teach people that hitting someone over the head is not the right way to go about things. People know the way that they want to be treated, and most people do not want to be hit over the head.

 

[newfhouse]

Where does society get its morals?

Where does gorilla or dog or whale society get its morals?

 

[BoldonLad]

Where does gorilla or dog or whale society get its morals?

I notice your list contains only a small selection of mammals, is this for brevity?

Do groups othe than mammals have morals?, do ants for example have a McCarthy and Stone anthills, for retired ants? Is murder, theft, rape, etc allowable in the ant world?

 

[newfhouse]

I notice your list contains only a small selection of mammals, is this for brevity?

No, it’s because higher mammals have been observed making choices about moral behaviour. Are they taught theology by their elders or is care for others actually a consequence of evolutionary pressure?

Edit to add:
Just checking, we all accept that life is as it is as a product of evolution, right?

 

[All uphill]

If you take all the different types of religious expression in the world, monotheism, polytheism, panentheism etc. then either one of them is true and the others false, or all of them are false. If Christianity is true, the others are false

And hence lots of wars, cruelty and oppression by people who just need to get that other lot in order.

Btw, I'll take the "all of them are false" option.

 

[BoldonLad]

No, it’s because higher mammals have been observed making choices about moral behaviour. Are they taught theology by their elders or is care for others actually a consequence of evolutionary pressure?

Edit to add:
Just checking, we all accept that life is as it is as a product of evolution, right?

Absolutely

 

[mudsticks]

The Anglican church is split on this. Irreconcilably so imo and has been for a long time, and the primary issue is in the first instance the authority of scripture. When scripture goes against modern society, should you ditch it, especially when said modern society can no longer define what a word like woman means?

Why does the choice always seem to be between being 'progressive' and so-called homophobia? Adultery is a sin, but calling it so does not necessarily imply a hatred of those who have committed it. You may not agree with it, but from the scriptural Anglican point of view men who have sex with each other are alienating themselves from their creator, and therefore are not being loving.

If you take all the different types of religious expression in the world, monotheism, polytheism, panentheism etc. then either one of them is true and the others false, or all of them are false. If Christianity is true, the others are false, notwithstanding some doctrinal overlap some of the time.

That rules out promiscuous sex and abortion if you consider the unborn to be separately human, the acquistion of massive wealth regardless of the cost to others etc. etc. A non preoccupation with self, hardly something a mark of today's generation (self-esteem, self-love, self-actualisation, self fullfillment), although not unique to it of course.

And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.

And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

This will include hypocritical American TV evangelists.

Where does society get its morals? What does it base them on? Who gets to decide what is right and wrong, especially the issue Toksvig is criticising the Archbishop for?

Toksvig seems to agree with you here, but I would have thought the history of the 20th century alone would have made that more or less untenable. I do not subscribe to the view that no-one never does anything selfless or good, but the natural tendency is to be selfish and do wrong, and law is necessary to define and restrain this.

On my hols ATM, so shouldn't be here really, but I just thought that I should point out, that you appear to have misconstrued the principals of things like self esteem, self actualisation, self love, self fulfilment etc.

These pursuits, properly involve practicing self knowledge, and lead to the realisation that we as individuals, are in fact a part of a far greater whole, and also to the reality of our collective interdependence, and the need for positive, non harmful actions..

Not to a separation from society, or to greater selfishness in the wider world.


Having a philosophy such as this, tends to a more universal, joined up conciousness if you will, which in turn can lead to becoming a more positive, less harmful actor.
Not to a tendency to mean-spiritedness.

Conversely, hatred, greed, fear, and the type of 'self' loathing which often leads to a need for external validation, come about when 'self' knowledge, or even 'self' love is lacking.

These are psychological problems which in turn can lead to activities such as focussing on the acquisition of excess material wealth, or to putting others down, for an egotistical 'win'
These sorts of behaviours start to fall away with the development of greater 'self actualisation'..

Some people who practice these kinds of philosophies are of course religious believers too.

There are plenty of genuinely selfless and genuinely spiritual people who follow individual religions, whether Abrahamic, or other.

And of course millions of non religious people who behave positively in the world too,.


Sadly we also see there are far too many people who claim to follow these religions but who behave terribly towards others

Even misusing their religion as a reason to persecute others, and do real harm..

Such as persecuting, shunning, or making 'second class' those people who happen to be be LGBT+
This persecution of the 'other' is a terrible, mean spirited, unnecessarily, life and love defeating path to take..

As Sandi has laid out


It's a sign of anti-humanity to treat those people badly.

Just as denying women the right of ownership of their own body, and forcing them to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, when safe early termination is widely available. is not 'good' for humanity either.

But this does seem to be something that people with particular religious beliefs seem to want to do to others.

Religion is often used to 'excuse' bigotry, and persecution..

No idea what you mean by 'promiscuous' sex, but enjoying a healthy truly consensual sex life is a positive, life enhancing thing.

A society that promotes good sex and relationship education, and good universals sex and reproductive healthcare supports that.

Many.of the Scandinavian countries seem to have got this one fairly well sorted.
Maybe Sandi brought that sensible humane approach with her from Denmark.

(Btw, are women having sex with each other, more or less alienated?? What's the Bible's position in on that?? )

Meanwhile people will still try to use their religious beliefs, dragged out selectively, from old tracts written selectively for and by the 'powers that were' at the time, to persecute, and put down, others who are doing no one, no harm .

Which is very sad.


Anyhoo up, you all seem to be getting on just splendidly in general, so my 'Friday thought for the day' is clearly unnecessary...

Keep up the good work all 😇

 

[qigong chimp]

Just checking, we all accept that life is as it is as a product of evolution, right?

At risk of being consigned to the freak show of creationist loons, isn't evolutionary theory a practice rather than a discrete established fact?

I heard the other day (R4 so it must be true) that Lamarckism, so roundly seen off by Darwinism back in the day, is making something of a come back.

 

[qigong chimp]

No idea what you mean by 'promiscuous' sex, but enjoying a healthy truly consensual sex life is a positive, life enhancing thing.

Consensual, sure, but I think sex works better if both partners keep in mind that it's dirty and wrong.

 

[newfhouse]

At risk of being consigned to the freak show of creationist loons, isn't evolutionary theory a practice rather than a discrete established fact?

The detail is obviously subject to enquiry and furrher discovery but the principle of natural selection is pretty firm, I think.

My point was that society, culture and selflessness can be explained by evolution with no requirement for gods, religion or, dare I say it, philosophical woo about a connected consciousness.