A Change In Beliefs

[Swift_Psycho 1]

I smoked pot in college. No need to tell my grandmom this...knowing it would crush her.

Haha, oh come on. You know this isn't even close to being analogous to my situation. Unless you'd really try to insist on your right to smoke pot in front of her to this very day I guess.

[Nimue1995 1]

Okay so do you participate in Christmas even though you don't believe it's Christ's birthday (I don't believe that either by the way)? If you're not feeling thankful would you turn down your parents invite to Thanksgiving? I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you truly don't believe then is going along with a ritual that you believe isn't going to change anything one way or the other really all that bad? When my parents would come to visit, I'd go with them to the Mormon church, even though I'm not a Mormon anymore. I didn't participate in their sacrament or anything but I bowed my head when they prayed and I sang the songs and then thought about other things while the preaching was going on. I did it so that my parents wouldn't be going alone in a strange place and I didn't worry one way or the other about being fake. But then they knew that I no longer believed so it was a bit different in that respect. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that you have to decide for yourself if participating in a ritual that you don't believe in is really all that bad.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

You have a perfect opportunity in front of you: the dinner praying thing. One evening, you can just say, "You know, I'm not really comfortable doing that anymore..." and start the conversation there.The one thing parents really want is for you to be happy. The most important thing you can tell them to ease their minds is that this realization has brought you peace of mind, that you're no longer struggling or feel like you're being dishonest to yourself or God, but that you're comfortable and happy. If they thought that faking belief made you miserable, they wouldn't want you to do it, but if they tell themselves that you were happy as a believer and NOW you're miserable and searching and in the dark philosophical wilderness, then they'll try their darndest to get you "back." I told my oldest aunt I didn't believe in God a few days after my father died, when everyone was trying to comfort me by saying he was in heaven. She's deeply religious, but also very wise and tolerant and easygoing, and she basically said there was no law saying I had to believe. Belief is something that really only exists between you and whatever deity, if any, you feel close to. She drew comfort from God, I (eventually) drew comfort from Buddhist practices. The important thing to her was simply that I did find some kind of comfort. So I believe that my deeply Christian grandparents are in fact in Christian heaven. But I will, if anything, maybe be reincarnated -- we die thinking that we'll get whatever we believe in. [Actually, I think we just die and that's that, but I don't want to deny my grandparents, even in my own mind, of an eternity in which they're together and happy, the eternity they wanted to have.]Just reassure them that you're happy, and that will hopefully go a long way toward easing their minds.By the way, I don't have any problem visiting family for Easter, Christmas, etc. Those visits are all about the family and the food; it's not like we get together to spend three hours on our knees praying. We're stuffing ourselves, getting drunk, and laughing. It's fellowship and communion, all right, but only in the totally secular senses. The calendar date doesn't matter -- those "religious" holidays just happen to be when I get time off from work.I LOVE Peter Singer!!! And speaking of whether or not any of us are "good people," his answer would be no. Here's my favorite, very sobering, quote from him:

In the face of global poverty, our affluent lifestyle is indefensible. We know, or should know, that extreme poverty causes extensive suffering and death in the world’s least developed countries – UNICEF says that nearly 30,000 children die every day from avoidable, poverty-related causes. We also know that we can reduce that suffering by donating money to UNICEF, or Oxfam, or other organizations that assist people to lift themselves out of this poverty. Consider, for example, the fact that the sum that buys us a meal in a restaurant would be enough to provide basic health care to several children who might otherwise die of easily preventable diseases …. We are not justified in treating the life-and-death interests of these people as if they were outweighed by quite trivial interests of our own. Indulgence in luxury is not morally neutral, and if we spend our money on restaurants, cars, and clothing, but do not give substantial sums – let’s say, at least 10% of our income – to help those in need, the fact that we have not killed anyone ourselves is not enough to make us morally decent citizens of the world.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Haha, oh come on. You know this isn't even close to being analogous to my situation. Unless you'd really try to insist on your right to smoke pot in front of her to this very day I guess.

Yea... you are correct. I was just trying to say that unless your "non-belief" or right to not believe is something that outweighs your ... ah ... nevermind.Revert back to : "Only you know the answer to this"

[Swift_Psycho 1]

Okay so do you participate in Christmas even though you don't believe it's Christ's birthday (I don't believe that either by the way)? If you're not feeling thankful would you turn down your parents invite to Thanksgiving? I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you truly don't believe then is going along with a ritual that you believe isn't going to change anything one way or the other really all that bad? When my parents would come to visit, I'd go with them to the Mormon church, even though I'm not a Mormon anymore. I didn't participate in their sacrament or anything but I bowed my head when they prayed and I sang the songs and then thought about other things while the preaching was going on. I did it so that my parents wouldn't be going alone in a strange place and I didn't worry one way or the other about being fake. But then they knew that I no longer believed so it was a bit different in that respect. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that you have to decide for yourself if participating in a ritual that you don't believe in is really all that bad.

I'm really not that big on holidays frankly, but they come around so rarely that it isn't much of a hassle to put up with "celebrating" Christmas and/or Easter. It is obviously more of a hassle to have to continually deceive my parents about my belief in everyday life.It isn't about going along with rituals that maybe are even enjoyable. Like during Christmas, it's nice to be able to see relatives and enjoy their company. I'm fine with celebrating a holiday I don't care about since pleasantness is associated with it in addition to the fact that it is only once a year (plus there is the whole thing about how secular Christmas has become, whether it is right or not). The ritual of church is boring as hell, and occurs once a week, and it is a practice that makes me get up early on Sunday morning when I would rather be sleeping.It's very nice of you to go with them to Mormon church, and I mean that completely sincerely. But I don't think it's necessarily right to say that you have to, or even should be doing it. Especially given that they know you are no longer a Mormon, at that point I guess you going with them just seems kind of strange in a sense. Don't most Christians believe that Mormons are full of it, making attending their services a bad thing to do? I'm not asking in an offensive way, I just find you going to those services when deceiving your parents isn't even an issue anymore to be kind of strange since you still believe in God, but presumably not that one.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

You have a perfect opportunity in front of you: the dinner praying thing. One evening, you can just say, "You know, I'm not really comfortable doing that anymore..." and start the conversation there.The one thing parents really want is for you to be happy. The most important thing you can tell them to ease their minds is that this realization has brought you peace of mind, that you're no longer struggling or feel like you're being dishonest to yourself or God, but that you're comfortable and happy. If they thought that faking belief made you miserable, they wouldn't want you to do it, but if they tell themselves that you were happy as a believer and NOW you're miserable and searching and in the dark philosophical wilderness, then they'll try their darndest to get you "back." I told my oldest aunt I didn't believe in God a few days after my father died, when everyone was trying to comfort me by saying he was in heaven. She's deeply religious, but also very wise and tolerant and easygoing, and she basically said there was no law saying I had to believe. Belief is something that really only exists between you and whatever deity, if any, you feel close to. She drew comfort from God, I (eventually) drew comfort from Buddhist practices. The important thing to her was simply that I did find some kind of comfort. So I believe that my deeply Christian grandparents are in fact in Christian heaven. But I will, if anything, maybe be reincarnated -- we die thinking that we'll get whatever we believe in. [Actually, I think we just die and that's that, but I don't want to deny my grandparents, even in my own mind, of an eternity in which they're together and happy, the eternity they wanted to have.]Just reassure them that you're happy, and that will hopefully go a long way toward easing their minds.By the way, I don't have any problem visiting family for Easter, Christmas, etc. Those visits are all about the family and the food; it's not like we get together to spend three hours on our knees praying. We're stuffing ourselves, getting drunk, and laughing. It's fellowship and communion, all right, but only in the totally secular senses. The calendar date doesn't matter -- those "religious" holidays just happen to be when I get time off from work.I LOVE Peter Singer!!! And speaking of whether or not any of us are "good people," his answer would be no.

Hopefully me being happy is a primary issue with them. The philosopher side of me always focuses more on truth than happiness though, since even if I was "happier" as a Christian, that in no way makes it any more true. However, in addressing my parents I could try your strategy since it has likely a greater chance of making things go smoothly.Is that quote from older Singer like in the 70s, or newer Singer from like post-2000? I'm currently reading "One World" by him, and I really like his attempt to kind of "update" previous views to make them more practical for everyone. I admire him greatly for his commitment to aiding others, but even he knows how incredibly demanding his older work is and that even by a Utilitarian standpoint he may very well be justified in toning it down to yield greater results.His definition of "good people" may or may not be unreasonable as well I'd say. I've become a bigger fan of using the phrase and trying to define the parameters of someone who is "minimally decent," since to be less than a good person does not necessarily make you a bad person, but to be less than "minimally decent" generally does lead to such a conclusion. In either case, by my own definition I still am not even minimally decent, so I am trying to change that.Nice to know someone else is as big a fan of Singer's work as I am, though admittedly I admire him mostly for his consistency as a Utilitarian (rather than having to make exceptions to his rules or do a ton of patchwork as is common among ethical philosophers who run into sticky problems) probably even more than his actual views.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

Revert back to : "Only you know the answer to this"

Almost always I agree with this, which is why this is probably the first time I've ever asked for advice on this forum for anything. In this case, however, I really am not sure, and I just was hoping you guys would give me some assistance by giving your opinions and arguing them out a bit. I also was interested in hearing other people's experiences with similar issues so that I might have a better way of doing the cost-benefit analysis. And then there was always the chance of someone giving a new option, like Lois kind of did.I really wasn't lying before when I said I'm giving all options real consideration. In arguing with you I was merely trying to get you to make the best possible case for your opinion, not necessarily because I disagree with your method or opinion at all.

[Nimue1995 1]

I'm really not that big on holidays frankly, but they come around so rarely that it isn't much of a hassle to put up with "celebrating" Christmas and/or Easter. It is obviously more of a hassle to have to continually deceive my parents about my belief in everyday life.It isn't about going along with rituals that maybe are even enjoyable. Like during Christmas, it's nice to be able to see relatives and enjoy their company. I'm fine with celebrating a holiday I don't care about since pleasantness is associated with it in addition to the fact that it is only once a year (plus there is the whole thing about how secular Christmas has become, whether it is right or not). The ritual of church is boring as hell, and occurs once a week, and it is a practice that makes me get up early on Sunday morning when I would rather be sleeping.It's very nice of you to go with them to Mormon church, and I mean that completely sincerely. But I don't think it's necessarily right to say that you have to, or even should be doing it. Especially given that they know you are no longer a Mormon, at that point I guess you going with them just seems kind of strange in a sense. Don't most Christians believe that Mormons are full of it, making attending their services a bad thing to do? I'm not asking in an offensive way, I just find you going to those services when deceiving your parents isn't even an issue anymore to be kind of strange since you still believe in God, but presumably not that one.

If they were going to their home church then there wouldn't be a question about it. I wouldn't be going and they knew that. But being as how they were staying at my place, going to a church full of strangers I felt it was the hospitable and honorable thing to do. And regardless of the fact that we disagreed about this, I still did honor them. And I guess that's part of what I was trying to say too. Do you feel that you are honoring your parents more by deceiving them or telling them the truth?

[Swift_Psycho 1]

Do you feel that you are honoring your parents more by deceiving them or telling them the truth?

Tricky question, isn't it? I'm just not sure, though I definitely see where you're coming from.On the other hand, I can also offer the different perspective that to lie to them about this is extremely patronizing, and therefore disrespectful. To deceive in this case is to essentially say that I don't believe they can handle the truth about who I really am so I lied to "protect" them and their feelings, the way a parent may choose to tell certain falsities about whatever to their children when they are young to protect their innocence or spare their feelings. While it is a decision motivated by benevolence, the dignity thing still has its weight in the discussion here too I think, especially because my parents are not children. And certainly from a "Golden Rule" standpoint, I wouldn't want someone to patronize me by lying about this kind of thing just to protect my feelings. I would take it as an insult frankly.P.S. Just so you know, I'm not just being difficult for the sake of being an ass. If it isn't obvious yet by my responses in this thread, I get a kick out of discussing "moral" dilemmas, though admittedly in the grand scheme of things this isn't exactly one of grave importance.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

P.S. If it isn't obvious yet by my responses in this thread, I get a kick out of discussing "moral" dilemmas, though admittedly in the grand scheme of things this isn't exactly one of grave importance.

The quote I posted above from Singer is from The Philosopher's Magazine. I think it's Issue 36, Fourth Quarter 2006, but I might be wrong about that. If it is that one, it contains both a roundtable on poverty and also two philosophers debating the influence of Singer, so I don't know if it was written for that issue or is an old quote pulled out for the debate.Lately the trolley question has been getting a lot of press. Before I knew the whole "brain lesion" theory and the near-universal results, I heard the question and immediately answered in the minority, "brain-damaged," utilitarian category, that of course I would push one person off a bridge to save five more on the tracks. Made perfect sense to me.Obviously, I read a lot from Eastern cultures. At home, I've got a couple of books that mention ethics parables used in college classes. Students from the East often interpret those stories very differently than Western students do, because of ideas about karma and caste.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

The quote I posted above from Singer is from The Philosopher's Magazine. I think it's Issue 36, Fourth Quarter 2006, but I might be wrong about that. If it is that one, it contains both a roundtable on poverty and also two philosophers debating the influence of Singer, so I don't know if it was written for that issue or is an old quote pulled out for the debate.Lately the trolley question has been getting a lot of press. Before I knew the whole "brain lesion" theory and the near-universal results, I heard the question and immediately answered in the minority, "brain-damaged," utilitarian category, that of course I would push one person off a bridge to save five more on the tracks. Made perfect sense to me.Obviously, I read a lot from Eastern cultures. At home, I've got a couple of books that mention ethics parables used in college classes. Students from the East often interpret those stories very differently than Western students do, because of ideas about karma and caste.

Yeah, the quote sounds like something he would have written back in the 70s, maybe in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality." I think he still holds the same views today anyway though, but he advocates that moral agents should promote something less demanding to the masses now since he is aware that sometimes by asking for less you get more results.The trolley question has always been very "meh" with me. I classify it under a "tragic dilemma," one where the acting agent has no choice but to emerge from the situation with dirty hands. In that case, as long as the agent acts from a motive of benevolence, I don't feel there is necessarily an obviously "right" answer to that question. Part of the thesis I'm currently writing tries to go into depth about tragic dilemmas and using ultimate motives to make moral assessments of character, because frankly I just don't think dilemmas like the trolley question have any good completely convincing answer as far as which is the better "moral" action, though my intuition leads me towards the standard Utilitarian answer even though I am not sure how adequately I could defend it if pressed."Brain lesion" theory sounds so familiar, but I can't recall it off the top of my head. I probably even know what you're talking about but just don't call it 'brain lesion theory.' Can you refresh my memory?

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Yeah, the quote sounds like something he would have written back in the 70s, maybe in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality." I think he still holds the same views today anyway though, but he advocates that moral agents should promote something less demanding to the masses now since he is aware that sometimes by asking for less you get more results.The trolley question has always been very "meh" with me. I classify it under a "tragic dilemma," one where the acting agent has no choice but to emerge from the situation with dirty hands. In that case, as long as the agent acts from a motive of benevolence, I don't feel there is necessarily an obviously "right" answer to that question. Part of the thesis I'm currently writing tries to go into depth about tragic dilemmas and using ultimate motives to make moral assessments of character, because frankly I just don't think dilemmas like the trolley question have any good completely convincing answer as far as which is the better "moral" action, though my intuition leads me towards the standard Utilitarian answer even though I am not sure how adequately I could defend it if pressed."Brain lesion" theory sounds so familiar, but I can't recall it off the top of my head. I probably even know what you're talking about but just don't call it 'brain lesion theory.' Can you refresh my memory?

Oh, it's just that people with damage or lesions to the ventromedial pre-frontal cortex always respond by pushing the person off the bridge. When that part of the brain is damaged, people display behavior that has been called "sociopathic," although some have called it just radically utilitarian, and there is reduced evidence of empathy. Since some scientists believed that part of the brain was involved in moral decision-making, they tested the trolley question on groups of people with those lesions, and even though the results are usually that about 90% would switch the trolley's path onto a track that killed one person versus the track that killed five, just the opposite, only 10%, would actually push one person off a bridge themselves to save five lives. In short, 90% can do it indirectly, but only 10% can do it directly. In people with the lesions, like 100% of them said yes, they would shove the person off the bridge directly, no problem.Now that you mention it, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" sounds very familiar, and I think that is the source of the qoute. I've always been a bohemian and lived a life that isn't at all materialistic compared to most other Americans -- the house is a fixer-upper, the truck is ten years old and dented everywhere, the clothes are jeans and t-shirt. But when I read those words, "Indulgence in luxury is not morally neutral," it was just a punch to my American gut. It changed the way I look at possessions and the Western lifestyle completely.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

Oh, it's just that people with damage or lesions to the ventromedial pre-frontal cortex always respond by pushing the person off the bridge. When that part of the brain is damaged, people display behavior that has been called "sociopathic," although some have called it just radically utilitarian, and there is reduced evidence of empathy. Since some scientists believed that part of the brain was involved in moral decision-making, they tested the trolley question on groups of people with those lesions, and even though the results are usually that about 90% would switch the trolley's path onto a track that killed one person versus the track that killed five, just the opposite, only 10%, would actually push one person off a bridge themselves to save five lives. In short, 90% can do it indirectly, but only 10% can do it directly. In people with the lesions, like 100% of them said yes, they would shove the person off the bridge directly, no problem.Now that you mention it, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" sounds very familiar, and I think that is the source of the qoute. I've always been a bohemian and lived a life that isn't at all materialistic compared to most other Americans -- the house is a fixer-upper, the truck is ten years old and dented everywhere, the clothes are jeans and t-shirt. But when I read those words, "Indulgence in luxury is not morally neutral," it was just a punch to my American gut. It changed the way I look at possessions and the Western lifestyle completely.

That study is pretty interesting stuff. I think I may have learned about that in a psych class a couple years ago, can't remember.I'm glad that you were so affected in a positive way by Singer, because that's pretty unusual I'd bet. I enjoy reading him thoroughly, but in some ways I think that his moral standards are so high that most who read him will write him off as kind of loony. His willingness to remain completely consistent in his views on Utilitarianism also lead him to unconventional conclusions about certain stances on things such as infants, the elderly, and some other subjects that most ethicists try very hard to make (arguably illogical) exceptions for. Rather than "wuss out" in a sense, he just takes those few hits so that his overall theory on how we should live holds firm, and he has a gimungus number of critics as a result. I respect him greatly for that.When I had my first exposure to him and read his article, "All Animals are Equal" (I think it might have been an edited chapter out of Animal Liberation) a couple years ago, words really can't describe how impressed I was. He writes in a very clear, concise manner, and to this day I can still find no real error in his logic at all concerning his stance on animals. It was a really stunning piece of work, though I haven't changed my diet or anything as a result because I dunno, I'm just that selfish I guess. It's awesome that he actually made a real impact on you though.