Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan
I still would make the case that a reasoned, rational morality based on non violence and being civilized is beneficial to our survival as species. I would also assert this as being superior to most religious moralities as it isn't based on superstitous and petty restrictions which don't withstand critical thought.
|
I'd remind you when most people say they support "non-violence", in this culture, they're lying. What most people consider as violence is only that which falls outside the intersection of officially sanctioned violence & popularly supported violence.
Calling the police on someone is an act of violence, incarcerating someone is an act of violence, and taxation is an act of violence. What differentiates these from smacking girls is the level of popularity of each & the lack or presence of official sanctioning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan
In any case, I wouldn't say religion is necessarily the origin of rooting for the underdog, which I guess was HHBH's original assertion. Protecting the defenseless goes back to hammurabi's code and certainly spans holy books the world over. I think it's a reaction evolved very early on in the most primitive groups. Cooperation is key to group survival, after all. We've never been a species to disregard the weak amoung us. We've used and usurped the weak by asserting dominance in positions of power and leadership, but generally not abandoned them. I'd say this is a trait we have in common with our ancestors, as many of our cousins display altruism.
|
Hierarchy is based on inequality of power and the greater the hierarchy, the greater the inequality. In other words, hierarchy is based on violence & the threat of violence.
Now, yes, there is a dialectic between compassion & terror in such hierarchys; however, what you're ignoring is that the compassion was community specific, and that the notion of compassion for everyone the world over is entirelly new
and rooted in Christian superstition.