I had a pretty interesting debate last night with a friend about whether religious morality was a good thing or not. He was a fan of it, whereas I'm not. I don't want to go too deep into details about that, but the core of my argument is there's nothing from religion you can't get elsewhere, and rather than producing the same result or better you get the same result or worse. Anything good from religion can be discerned from reason. Anything bad from religion is often a result of being dogmatically stuck on a fixed, outdated version of morality. Morality is only as good as the code it's derived from and religions are often based on divine command theory and make an argument from authority. Their views are based on the views (or "character", to avoid a common attempt to bypass this argument) of their deity, and are fixed on them no matter what. Sometimes you can get good out of that, sure, sometimes you get bad though. You get people stuck on outdated moral codes that no longer produce good results, and often times adherents to those religions oppose further progress believing their outdated codes are the end all be all of morality. I'm not saying that these laws may not have made sense in the time and context they were written in, but times change, we discover new and better things, and sometimes old stuff deserves to be left to the museum. The Bible is one such moral code for me. Sure, the love your neighbor stuff is great, but did you read all the crap about stoning people to death over minor infractions? Or the genocides of joshua? (Which are, ironically relevant to the modern Israel situation). Or the whole hell thing? Yeah.
Anyway. Again, I'm not interested in dwelling on that, but I do want to put a human centered capitalist spin on it, since my economic views stem from my humanist views. One argument this guy made was in favor of charity. And how Christians do charity and that makes them moral. They'll also say atheists don't do charity. Which Im not even sure is true. But I digress. But here's the thing. While charity does some good, it's one of those things that's outdated and inefficient, and I don't value charity that much. I feel like charity helps people in limited ways at best, and it often serves to stroke the ego of the privileged person participating in it, where it makes them feel like they're doing something, even when they're not.
My own views on charity vs say, state action, actually go back to Thomas Paine. In his essay "Agrarian Justice", he argued for a fixed grant of money to be paid to each citizen when they reach adult age, calling it a "citizen's dividend". I see it as a precursor to UBI, something that kind of talks about giving people money, but yeah, he saw it primarily as a one time grant at the age of adulthood for which to do whatever they want. I think UBI is better because it provides a constant stream of payments over one's life, and is more resilient to being sabotaged by outside sources (like predatory educational institutions looking for their piece of a windfall, looking at you colleges), or the peoples own incompetence, but it was an idea. Anyway, to argue for this vs charity, Paine argued the following:
There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed.
I believe that, and I agree with that. The Bible said the poor are always among us, and as long as we rely on charity, we're never gonna get rid of poverty. We literally need to organize the resources through the state in a directed way to fully resolve the problem. As such, state action solves this problem in a way charity never will. Because the state can address the problem systemically, whereas charity is just a bunch of individuals doing things within a flawed system.
So...is arguing for charity being inspired by christianity a good thing if secularists want to use states to address the issue more systematically? No.
But the argument goes further, this guy thinks the origins of the modern safety net came from Christianity. He cited luther's catechism as influencing for example, the nordic states and their direction with safety nets. However, this is where he starts treading into my pro UBI and anti welfare policies.
I mean, charity, better than nothing. Welfare, still flawed, better than charity, which is better than nothing. How do we do better still? Well, by organizing that system of pulleys via a UBI, or universal healthcare. Something that removes the weight off of individuals entirely.
But, sadly, our entire approach to safety nets, warts and all, is based on christianity. And I'm going to post another quote. This one is lengthy and it comes from Phillipe Van Parijs "Basic income: A radical proposal for a free society and a sane economy" (p. 51-54).
In Thomas More’s Utopia (1516), the fictional Portuguese traveler Raphael Hythlodaeus, who allegedly visited the island of Utopia, tells of a conversation he had in England with the Archbishop of Canterbury. “Petty larceny isn’t bad enough to deserve the death penalty,” he told the Archbishop. “And no penalty on earth will stop people from stealing, if it’s their only way of getting food.” He suggested an alternative to the gallows: “Instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody is under the frightful necessity of becoming, first a thief, and then a corpse.”1 When the conversation was suddenly interrupted, he had just started sketching how this objective might be achieved: “Revive agriculture and the wool industry, so that there is plenty of honest, useful work for the great army of unemployed.”2 An economic revival might do the trick, but More might well have had in mind another, more direct way of “providing everyone with some means of livelihood.” It was articulated for the first time just a few years later by one of his close friends and fellow humanists. In 1517, one year after having arranged for the publication of Utopia in the university town of Louvain, Desiderius Erasmus founded there the Collegium Trilingue and recruited in this connection a young scholar called Juan Luis Vives (1492–1540). Born in Valencia, Spain, to a family of converted Jews, Vives studied at the Sorbonne in Paris and was then living in the booming harbor city of Bruges. In a letter to More, Erasmus described him as someone who “despite his youth, has a knowledge of all branches of philosophy far above the bulk of the scholars.” In the spring of 1525, on his way back from a teaching stint at Oxford, Vives was hosted in More’s house in London. He was then working on a book which he believed could get him into trouble. Even just the title and the outline had to be kept under wraps. Vives wrote to his friend Francis Craneveldt in October 1525, “I do not dare entrust them to a letter, even to a dearest friend, for fear that it would fall in the wrong hands.”3 The book was published in Antwerp the following year under the title De Subventione Pauperum. What was so new in Vives’s book and what was so subversive about it? De Subventione Pauperum was the first developed plea for a scheme of public assistance, the first form taken by what is now called the welfare state. The first half of the book consists of a theological discussion that anchors the scheme in the Christian duty of charity. The obligation to help the poor is an old theme in the Christian tradition, sometimes expressed with great vigor. Thus, Vives appeals to a famous statement by Saint Ambrose (340–397), bishop of Milan, to the effect that refusing to succor the needy when one is well-off is on a par with stealing: “It is the hungry man’s bread you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you store away, and the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man’s ransom and freedom.”4 Vives agrees: “If it is a crime to take something from a rich person, how much more wicked is it to take it from the poor? From the rich person one is only taking money, but from the poor person one is taking life itself.”5 It is in the second half of De Subventione Pauperum that novelty shows up. There, Vives argues for a direct involvement of civil authorities in poor relief, using, among others, arguments reminiscent of More’s Raphael: “When people’s generosity is at an end, those in need do not have anything to eat. Some of them will find themselves virtually obliged to become thieves in the town or on the roads.” Once his scheme is in place, “there will be fewer thefts, crimes, robberies, murders, and capital offences.”6 Vives does not only argue for the principle of public assistance. He spells out the form it should take: unambiguously a scheme strongly conditional in the sense of targeting the poor, taking their household situation into account, requiring willingness to work, and preferring kind over cash. “Above all, we must recognize the law imposed by the Lord on all humankind: that is, that each person should eat bread got through his own work. When I use the words ‘eat’, ‘feed’ or ‘subsistence’ I understand them to mean not just food, but also clothing, shelter, fuel, light and everything that is needed to keep the human body. No poor person who can work, according to his age and his health, should remain idle.”7 The work condition, in particular, is stressed with great force. For every poor, there will be something to do: For example, someone who cannot sew clothes can sew stockings. If he is of an advanced age, or slow in thinking, he should be taught an easier trade, which can be taught in a few days, like digging earth, drawing water, carrying a load, pushing a cart. . . . Even blind people should not remain idle. There are many things they can do. . . . Sick and old people should be given easy things to work on, according to their age and their health. No one is so ill that he lacks the strength to do anything at all. In this way, occupied and focused on their work, the thoughts and bad practices which would otherwise be born in them will be restrained.8 The scheme does aim to cover all the poor, whatever the source of the poverty, but the work condition can be differentiated accordingly: “Those who waste their fortune in bad and stupid ways, like gaming, whoring, by luxury or on gluttony, still have to be fed because people cannot be left to starve. For those, however, the most unpleasant work should be reserved. . . . They must not die of hunger, but they should be limited by a frugal diet and hard work.”9 The objective of the scheme is to reach all the poor and only the poor. As some who have been “honorably educated” may be reluctant to reveal their neediness, “they need to be traced with care and relieved discreetly.” On the other hand “special care must be taken to protect against fraud by idle people and malingerers, so that they do not have the chance to cheat.” The level of subsistence guarantee to the poor must remain frugal: “they should not receive any luxuries, because they could easily form bad habits.” But a top-up may be required over and above what they earn through their work: “For the poor who live at home, it is necessary to procure work or employment in public works; other citizens have no shortage of work to give them. If it turns out that their needs are greater than what they happen to earn by work, one can add what is judged they lack.”10 How is all this supposed to be funded? Partly from the product of the work performed by those conscripted as part of the scheme, but above all from voluntary donations by the better off. “People cannot be forced to do good, because otherwise the very idea of charity and welfare will perish.” But people will give generously if they know the money is well used. Indeed, “it is to be hoped that in other towns, where the same care is not taken for poor people as it is here, many rich people will send their money, because they know it will be well distributed to help those most in need.”11 Crowdfunding for charitable purposes, one might call this today
I know, that's a mouthful. So let me break it down. Yes, the modern safety net was borne out of the Christian worldview. It did believe in giving charity to people in order to help alleviate poverty.
However, virtually every flaw I have with the modern safety net is present in here. I'll quote a few more things from the above passage individually to make my case:
Vives does not only argue for the principle of public assistance. He spells out the form it should take: unambiguously a scheme strongly conditional in the sense of targeting the poor, taking their household situation into account, requiring willingness to work, and preferring kind over cash
So....here we start seeing the problems.
First, means testing. It has to target the poor. It cant be universal. I like universal safety nets.
Second of all, require a willingness to work. Basically, putting work requirements on it.
And third, giving people stuff over giving them money. After all, common christian logic is the poor are too stupid to spend the money as they want, as poverty is a moral failing on their part, or alternative it's intended to limit their freedom. But I wanna go further.
. “Above all, we must recognize the law imposed by the Lord on all humankind: that is, that each person should eat bread got through his own work. When I use the words ‘eat’, ‘feed’ or ‘subsistence’ I understand them to mean not just food, but also clothing, shelter, fuel, light and everything that is needed to keep the human body. No poor person who can work, according to his age and his health, should remain idle.”7
And here we are, the origin of the work fetish. According to Christianity, God imposed a law on all humanity that they must WORK and WORK HARD for their bread. We can't just let people sit around because original sin and because some dude ate an apple after listening to a talking snake, we need to make them WORK FOR IT!
And thus, we get the common weird shuffle that Christian morality imposes on people. The shuffle that, sure, we need to care for the poor, Jesus told us to, and think of all the benefits that might have, BUT...we must balance this with HARD WORK. We can't just let people be left alone with the money to do what they will or they might not develop the right work ethic. We need to MAKE them work. And it's not just work, but HARD work, as we'll see with this quote.
The work condition, in particular, is stressed with great force. For every poor, there will be something to do: For example, someone who cannot sew clothes can sew stockings. If he is of an advanced age, or slow in thinking, he should be taught an easier trade, which can be taught in a few days, like digging earth, drawing water, carrying a load, pushing a cart. . . . Even blind people should not remain idle. There are many things they can do. . . . Sick and old people should be given easy things to work on, according to their age and their health. No one is so ill that he lacks the strength to do anything at all. In this way, occupied and focused on their work, the thoughts and bad practices which would otherwise be born in them will be restrained.8 The scheme does aim to cover all the poor, whatever the source of the poverty, but the work condition can be differentiated accordingly: “Those who waste their fortune in bad and stupid ways, like gaming, whoring, by luxury or on gluttony, still have to be fed because people cannot be left to starve. For those, however, the most unpleasant work should be reserved. . . . They must not die of hunger, but they should be limited by a frugal diet and hard work.”9
Basically, the more character flaws you express as per their moral system, the more miserable you need to be made to be. We can't let them starve, we have to teach them the joys of HARD WORK and give them the MOST MISERABLE jobs in order to teach them to be good workers in their eyes. Like really, these christians have a literal fetish with this stuff. As I read stuff about the protestant work ethic and what we did to people of generations past, it really is sickening. The weirdo protestant work ethic people are really responsible for a lot of the misery that we still see in modern societies on this issue.
Again, they can't just give a universal grant and leave people alone to their own devices. No they have to means test stuff and work requirement stuff, and make sure the aid is in kind aid rather than money. And we need to forced them TO WORK.
” The level of subsistence guarantee to the poor must remain frugal: “they should not receive any luxuries, because they could easily form bad habits.” But a top-up may be required over and above what they earn through their work: “For the poor who live at home, it is necessary to procure work or employment in public works; other citizens have no shortage of work to give them. If it turns out that their needs are greater than what they happen to earn by work, one can add what is judged they lack.”
This seems to explain why they cant just be given money. They cant be in charge of their own lives, they need to be made miserable and given no luxuries because they're the pieces of crap they are. And we need to put good habits in these people.
Again, okay. Christianity has charity. Cool. It has the flawed modern safety net. Cool. My system is better. I just want to give people money and NOT impose an entire moral system onto them. Thats the problem with these christians. They can't just leave people alone, they have to fricking lecture people, and control people, and to make them miserable in order to make them into the character they want them to be. And they're only given what they deem them to get, and they're only gonna get something for free if it's deemed by some authority that they deserve it.
Again, this is the entire logic behind the current cruelty of our safety net.
Oh, and to come back around into the charity thing.
How is all this supposed to be funded? Partly from the product of the work performed by those conscripted as part of the scheme, but above all from voluntary donations by the better off. “People cannot be forced to do good, because otherwise the very idea of charity and welfare will perish.” But people will give generously if they know the money is well used. Indeed, “it is to be hoped that in other towns, where the same care is not taken for poor people as it is here, many rich people will send their money, because they know it will be well distributed to help those most in need.”11 Crowdfunding for charitable purposes, one might call this today
So basically they're just being forced to work for their own benefits.
Also, charity. We can't just have the government do it, that will stop people from giving willingly via charity? WHO CARES?! Seriously, we should WANT to end charity. Remove the NEED for charity. But again, Christians have this moral system where morality isnt just about consequences. It's about character building. It's virtue ethics. Charity is a virtue, and we need to keep people poor so that people know the virtue of giving to charity. Like what the actual fricking heck? And it's the same with the work ethic. people need to know the joys of hard work! No they don't.
Here's the thing. it's the same logic as their backwards mindsets toward sex ed. As we know, christians often dont like sex ed. Sex ed might encourage people to have sex, which is a sin. So we need to have abstinance only education which encourages them NOT to have sex. And if they still have sex, then we lecture and moralize them about the consequences when they get STDs or need an abortion.
And this...creates worse results. But they don't care. Morality isn't necessarily about consequences to a christian, it's about virtue. Virtue in what context? What's the point of virtue? Like, if you dont need charity, and you have a system that JUST does away with poverty, why do we need charity. Charity makes sense in a world with poverty with no better solutions but if we have a better solution, so what? let them. Let them be as selfish as they want. I mean, that christian friend said i sound like ayn rand. Let me put it this way. Ayn rand wouldnt have a bad ethical system if people didnt suffer from it. The problem with ayn rand's egoism is the fact that it leads to poverty and people suffering. If we can create a system where people don't need to give to charity and can be selfish, why not? It's a huge moral burden off of everyone's shoulders.
If we can create a world where everyone had access to all of the contraception, abortion, and STD treatments that they want, why do we care how much they have sex? Again, it's because in the christian worldview, chastity is a virtue. And we need to preserve the moral choice to be good because that's what god wants...or something. We can't just solve the problem and the very moral dilemma. No, we need to live in a worse world where it forces these moral quandries on people where they have to suffer for making the wrong choices.
And it's the same with welfare. We could just solve poverty and be done with it. But oh then we wouldnt have charity, and poor people wouldnt have work ethic. What is the point of virtue? All it does, is make us virtuous in a world where such virtue is necessary to minimize suffering. We cant just remove the moral dilemma because then people wouldnt need to be as virtuous and maybe they wouldnt be. So what, I ask. Well, for them, morality IS about the internal person, NOT the consequences. It IS about the character of one's heart. And for them, suffering builds character. We cant have a world with nice things, because we need people to suffer, so they know how to behave...in a world where if they don't they suffer. They care more about the behavior modification and virtue than about the result.
I'm about the result, and to this guy, he seems my ethical system as deeply immoral. He's said as much to me. He thinks charity makes his moral system better and compares my system to something ayn rand would write. Well, maybe so, I mean, I do encourage ENLIGHTENED self interest, but I think that's needed. i dont value character building, or this weird collectivist sidehug he seems to be a fan of. Like here's the thing. I wanna make a world where people can be ayn rand, and no one suffers for it. And that's okay. Why shouldnt that be okay. if people are selfish, and they're not hurting anyone by being selfish, then who cares?
But that's the thing. my views are based on individualism, secularism, minimizing suffering, and just getting the best results. His morality seems to be about character building and mild authoritarianism (the idea that we need to be repressed for our own good) and virtue for its own sake, and collectivism, and i just find his worldview stifling. I mean, if he wants to live that way, fine, but i tend to resent when people try to make others live according to their weirdo authoritarian moral systems.
As such, I really don't see the value in the christian or religious worldview. I flat out see it as an inferior, regressive, and authoritarian worldview that makes people suffer in order to make them do the right thing according to the whims of their control freak authoritarian that they call a "god." Sorry, not sorry. Screw Christian ethics, secular ethics ARE better, they minimize suffering and negative consequences while giving them freedom to live as they want. What's so wrong with THAT?!
That's not even getting into how people often keep bad ideas and rules around just because the Bible says so or whatever. And that happens A LOT in christianity and religious worldviews. Progress is always slow, and we have to be held back to allow these guys to integrated modern morality into their increasingly dated worldview based on the texts of an ancient culture from thousands of years ago. I'm sick of it, man.
I'll concede the fact that maybe atheists arent always more moral. And that yes, sometimes atheists tend to internalize work ethic BS too and don't tend to work through the indoctrination like they should. But ultimately, those views ARE old, they ARE based on religion, and I would probably argue that we should have an easier time convincing secularists of something than people with dogmatic morality based on an old moral system full of flaws.
I admit, not everyone buys this stuff. I know the pope came out in favor of UBI, so credit where credit is due. Christianity is admittedly pluralistic and some people do have different approaches. Still, the pope is criticized for dragging his feet on abortion and homosexuality, and other issues, because again, he still has to lead this 2000 year old organization. And generally speaking religious people are late to the party when it comes to progress. So yeah, I'd still argue secular morality is better. I'd especially argue my own specific humanist morality is better.
No comments:
Post a Comment