|
|
This is a simple question with a complicated answer that I am unsure of. I've been thinking about it a lot lately (actually, a link that someone else posted in another thread a while back sparked this question into my head). Would you lie about your faith (or in my case, lack of) for a huge advantage?
I would never, ever lie about my faith for cowardice reasons. I am not afraid of what people would do to me for being an atheist. I'll say it easily and I often do. But what if I would get something out of it? Let's face it, many people do discriminate towards atheists. One survey I read showed that most people wouldn't vote for a presidential candidate who was openly atheist. So if I wanted to be president, I would have to lie. Maybe there's a good job opening and I know that they will discriminate (even though it's illegal, you can't do much to prove it and even if you do sue, you're still out of that job), should I lie to get that job? That example is a more selfish one because I really should fight the discrimination. So it's an easy answer there... But this is where it gets grey... What about the president option? I could know that I have a bunch of wonderful ideas that will really help my country and improve the lives of many people. I can know that I am the best candidate. I could have plans for all sorts of great things. So do I lie? If I keep my integrity and tell the truth, no one benefits from my ideas. If I lie, and correctly execute my plan, then many people will be better off...
No, you don't lie.
I am someone who HAS lied about it - but not for any sort of personal gain. I won't bore with details but I lied about being an atheist so that our relatives could enjoy a church wedding.
I don't see the President as any more 'grey' than the first example you cited. One can always argue that one is doing something for unselfish reasons (as I just have), but the proof of the pudding is whether there actually ARE any personal gains. I would say that becoming the most important politician/leader in the world is a considerable personal gain. When you run for political office you present yourself and ask people to vote for you. Lying in that presentation is not permissable, IMHO.
If one felt strongly that one's ideas were vital (and many people do), then either declare you are an atheist and run, try to avoid the question and run (probably futile), or don't run but instead seek to explain your ideas in relevant publications/journals.....I see it as fairly black and white.
The 'moral balance' argument is utilitarianism plain and simple - weigh the benefits and losses and go with the best option. I used to think that I could support this line of argument, but I can't when it comes right down to it.....
The most entertaining option would be to lie, get the job, then announce your actual faith after getting entrenched in the position.
Then you get to watch the fun show as they try to find a way to fire you without getting sued for discrimination.
| Bikerman wrote: |
If one felt strongly that one's ideas were vital (and many people do), then either declare you are an atheist and run, try to avoid the question and run (probably futile), or don't run but instead seek to explain your ideas in relevant publications/journals.....I see it as fairly black and white.
The 'moral balance' argument is utilitarianism plain and simple - weigh the benefits and losses and go with the best option. I used to think that I could support this line of argument, but I can't when it comes right down to it..... |
That simply wouldn't work. You simply do not have any chance of getting elected if you're an atheist. End of story. Period. The surveys have been done and they show that most people would not vote for someone based on the fact that they are an atheist. You have a small percentage of people who would vote for an atheist, and out of that small pool you have to split it into people that will or will not vote for the candidate based on other reasons (such as the legitimate reason of not agreeing with their ideas).
It was such a big deal when Obama was elected because he's black. I didn't think it was a big deal at all. It would have been in the 60's and maybe even 70's. Nowadays, the big thing would be to have an atheist, homosexual, or Muslim president elected.
And the best way to make any change in this country is to be the most powerful person in the country. So if you feel that your ideas could help millions, then why wouldn't you try to get in the position where you're most likely going to be able to put your ideas into action? Yeah lying is wrong, but a lot of good could outweigh a small lie imo.
| ocalhoun wrote: | The most entertaining option would be to lie, get the job, then announce your actual faith after getting entrenched in the position.
Then you get to watch the fun show as they try to find a way to fire you without getting sued for discrimination. |
Yes. That is exactly what I would do and that is what I was going to propose in the my original post but decided to leave my comments out until I got some input from other people.
i disagree with Bikerman, and i'll focus on the president example.
There is no reason why faith should be an issue at all in the selection of the president. The fact that it does is... and there's no sugar-coating this... wrong. The people who would only vote for a Christian president or who would refuse to vote for a president who is atheist are wrong. They are acting immorally.
Now, two wrongs obviously don't make a right, but sometimes it is rationally necessary to respond to a wrong with another wrong in order to put an end to the first wrong. i'll give you two easy examples. First, it is wrong to incarcerate someone and take away their freedom, but if they are hurting people, you may have to do it to stop them. Second, it is wrong to beat someone up, but if someone attacks you, it is often rational and even necessary to retaliate violently to discourage them from attacking you again (or attacking others) (this is the classic American "don't tread on me" principle).
To make it clear, this is not about spite or even just sticking it to the bastards - not that they don't deserve it. This is about fixing the problem. These people have become a problem by acting immorally, and thus no longer deserve the respect afforded to moral beings.
If an atheist were to play Christian to get the presidency, then do a good job, then turn around and announce that they were never Christian to begin with, it would highlight several serious problems that need highlighting. First, it would highlight how bigoted the voting population is, which may lead to changes in the way candidates are allowed to campaign (for example, currently candidates cannot be sponsored by Doritos, but they can be sponsored by a church... go figure). Second, it would demonstrate to the public that atheists are just as good presidents as anyone else. Third, and most deviously, it would cast doubt on any future candidate's claims of religiosity, making being loudly religious a less clear-cut path to the White House.
To put it another way, if you started a trend of atheists pretending to be Christians to get the presidency then announcing their atheism as soon as they got it, you would effectively put an end to pulpit-pounding campaigning. You would put an end the first wrong - discrimination against atheists - by means of the second wrong - playing Christian; and once that job is done, you can stop playing Christian. That would beat the bigots.
Yes, yes, it would be ideal to beat the bigots by reasonably convincing them that bigotry is wrong... but come on. Do you really that's going to happen in any reasonable amount of time? So, you're forced to option #2: beating them by making their bigotry pointless; they can continue to act immorally, but it will now cost them so much it will no longer be worth it. This is no different from retaliating with violence when attacked; they can continue to attack you, but doing so will now cost them so much it will no longer be worth it.
You can also think of it in the same terms as a police undercover sting. An undercover cop lies. They pretend to be one of the criminals. Why do they do this? Obviously to catch the crooks right around them, but in the greater sense, to send a message to all crooks that crime now costs more - it's a riskier venture - because you'll always have to wonder whether that person you're dealing with who is pretending to be a criminal really is.
i don't agree with Bikerman that it's wrong if you get any personal gains out of it. Destroying entrenched bigotry will always give personal gains to the people who do it... does that mean that no one being discriminated against should try to put an end to it? Ridiculous. If you want to be president, but immoral people are wrongly barring you from it, then ****** them. Seriously, if they don't want to act like moral people they don't deserve any of the respect afforded to moral people. Lie to them, cheat them, steal from them if you have to - whatever is necessary to get the presidency despite their bigotry; get that presidency, then mock the immoral bigots you walked over to get it. Nothing will do more to put an end to the bigotry quickly than that.
And i also think Bikerman's objection misses the point. His answer focuses on getting the presidency in order to do good - which is a worthy goal, to be sure, but not the problem. The problem is getting the presidency period - overcoming the bigotry. No one runs for president thinking, "well, i don't have any good ideas, and i don't think i'll do the country any good." Everyone runs with intentions to do good; the problem is that only the people of the right religion are going to get the actual chance to do any "good". That is the problem we need to fix, and to fix that problem, i would even encourage people who have no intention whatsoever to be president to run; let them fake Christianity, earn the presidency, then announce, "fooled you!" and immediately step down... that will certainly send the message that the system is broken. People who peacefully cooperate with a flawed system are almost never the ones to fix it... it's the troublemakers who bring about change.
Well, firstly let me deal with the last point - I didn't really focus on getting the presidency to 'do good', it is just that the question was framed in such a way that I felt I needed to mention it.
On the substantive issue, let's consider the justification for behaving immorally (and I think we are agreed that lying to obtain a job is immoral..)
| Quote: | | These people have become a problem by acting immorally, and thus no longer deserve the respect afforded to moral beings. |
Wow. So let's break that down:
a) It is not OK to lie to a moral being, but (presumably?) it is OK to lie to a 'non moral' being.
b) A being is not moral if one thinks they are behaving in a bigotted manner, despite what they might actually say..such behaviour removes from them the status of 'moral being'.
I have a few problems with this...but I don't want to fixate on one aspect just now, so let's progress.
You make that point that sometimes | Quote: | | it is rationally necessary to respond to a wrong with another wrong in order to put an end to the first wrong. |
OK, I think we can agree there. The problem is that there is nothing demonstrably 'wrong' in refusing to vote for an atheist. A person does not have to justify their vote to anyone, and I cannot imagine any way in which one could objectively decide whether a vote was made for moral or immoral reasons. So at the end of the day this argument comes down to 'I think you voted from bigotry, therefore it is OK for me to lie'.
But it is actually worse....what it really boils down to is:
'I think that you will vote in a bigotted manner if I give you the chance, therefore I'm not going to give you the chance and I will instead lie'.
Finally, let's consider this equivalence you make : | Quote: | | This is no different from retaliating with violence when attacked; they can continue to attack you, but doing so will now cost them so much it will no longer be worth it. |
No, I don't think this works. Firstly if someone attacks you that is an objective fact (in most cases, anyway). There is no real doubt that they have behaved both immorally and illegally.
If someone doesn't vote for you, however, the reason for that is supposition on your part. It might be blindingly obvious to you (and to me) that they have voted from bigotry, but being a bigot isn't illegal and people are free to vote how they like. Moreover any attempt to judge a person by how they vote would be a superluminary voyage - leading back to 1984.
| Bikerman wrote: | | a) It is not OK to lie to a moral being, but (presumably?) it is OK to lie to a 'non moral' being. |
Of course. Would you say it's immoral to give false input to a computer? Or to use a moose call to coax a moose off the road?
Or if you just want to stick to people: would you say it's immoral for an undercover cop among murderous drug dealers to say no when asked if they're an undercover cop? Or to use the classic example, would you say it's immoral to tell the Nazis that there are no Jews hiding in your basement?
| Bikerman wrote: | | b) A being is not moral if one thinks they are behaving in a bigotted manner, despite what they might actually say..such behaviour removes from them the status of 'moral being'. |
A moral being is a moral being so long as they are being a moral being. (i mean, duh, right?) It has nothing to do with what they say or what you think. Either they are a moral being, or they are not; it is not a matter of perspective or opinion, it's an objective fact. The only tricky part is determining that objective fact (whether they are or not being moral beings); as with any objective fact, you might be mistaken about it. But if you take every single epistemological step you can to minimize the chance of being mistaken and the costs of being mistaken, then there's nothing more you can do.
| Bikerman wrote: | | The problem is that there is nothing demonstrably 'wrong' in refusing to vote for an atheist. |
Now you're being tricky. Obviously there is nothing immoral with refusing to vote for an atheist intrinsically. But clearly we're talking about a situation where people are refusing to vote for an atheist for immoral reasons (specifically, bigotry); as opposed to someone who refuses to vote for atheists for amoral reasons. This is no different from burning a cross on the lawn - obviously there is nothing immoral with burning a cross on the lawn intrinsically... but clearly doing it to terrorize people and scare them away because they are the wrong race is immoral.
So obviously this is not about voting against atheists, this is about the bigotry causing them to vote against atheists. And of course we can objectively determine whether they are voting against atheists for bigoted reasons. A simple statistical analysis will figure that out, to whatever confidence you feel is necessary... but that's not really required in this case because they flat out say that's what they're going to do.
(By the way, if you want a moral reason for not voting for an atheist, i can't think of one for the presidential election, but obviously it would be amoral - or probably even immoral - to vote an atheist Pope. If you had the power to vote for the Pope, and presuming the job of the Pope is to be God's spokesperson on Earth, it is at least foolish - and possibly downright wrong - to vote in someone who doesn't believe God exists.)
| Bikerman wrote: | | So at the end of the day this argument comes down to 'I think you voted from bigotry, therefore it is OK for me to lie'. |
Correct (although, technically, it's "i think you will vote from bigotry..."), but you're using "think" as if it's a bad thing here. "Think", in this context isn't just a hunch, notion or gut feeling - it is a conclusion you've come to after a thorough and rational assessment of the evidence. There is no rational, objective standard you can use to not believe these people are going to be bigots when they vote. A simple statistical analysis of elected officials will show the trend historically, then you can bolster that with case studies across the country across several decades to confirm the causal link, then you can... listen to what they say they're going to do.
i really can't wrap my head around the fact that you don't believe them saying they are going to be bigoted is reason enough to believe that they will. If your argument is that, despite saying that, they might not, then maybe so, but no rational person can make that assumption. To show you how ridiculous that would be, consider the following case: A person walks into the police station and says, "i'm going to go across the road and murder all the schoolchildren playing in that park." The cop on duty says, "well, maybe you will, but maybe you won't, and i can't prove you will, so i can't justify doing anything immoral to you like detaining you or searching you against your will."
| Bikerman wrote: | No, I don't think this works. Firstly if someone attacks you that is an objective fact (in most cases, anyway). There is no real doubt that they have behaved both immorally and illegally.
If someone doesn't vote for you, however, the reason for that is supposition on your part. It might be blindingly obvious to you (and to me) that they have voted from bigotry, but being a bigot isn't illegal and people are free to vote how they like. Moreover any attempt to judge a person by how they vote would be a superluminary voyage - leading back to 1984. |
But you're confusing yourself. One minute i can't know objectively the reason for their vote, the next it's blindingly obvious. Which is it? Either i know, or i don't; either it's obvious, or it isn't. It's a simple question of applying the scientific method: analyze past behaviour, form a parsimonious hypothesis, test that hypothesis against other evidence, form a conclusion about the most reasonable explanation for their voting behaviour, and use that to predict future voting behaviour. What level of evidence do you think should be sufficient to come to a reasonable conclusion that there is heavily bigoted voting?
How about this? In 2007, an American secular organization decided to try to find out how many atheists were serving as government officials at the federal, state and local levels. By considering the percentage of atheists in general, they expected 50 federal atheist officials, and 50,000 state and local ones. The final tally... ... ... 5. Yup. 5. Total. 1 was at the federal level: Pete Stark (this was when he "came out" as atheist, despite serving since 1972); 1 was at the state level: Ernie Chambers (the dude who filed suit against God, and he got into government as a leader during the civil rights movement, after being featured in an Oscar-nominated documentary); the other 3 were a school board president, a school committee member and a town meeting member. (source) A score of 5 with an expected value of 50,050. Is that not evidence enough of institutionalized anti-atheism?
But even without any of that, how can you possibly ignore the fact that: They... said... they would do it. They said, straight up, they wouldn't vote for a qualified atheist. How can you know that, and ignore it? Why does that evidence not matter? They said - without coercion - that they would act immorally when they voted. This is not "judging a person by how they vote", this is judging a person by what (they say) they are (backed up by evidence that they're not joking around when they said it).
-------------------------------------------------
Besides, through all this you're missing the obvious: if they are really not voting out of bigotry, then they shouldn't care when the person they voted for wasn't the religion they thought they were. This action - faking religion to get office - only harms bigots. That's the point of it.
| Indi wrote: |
Besides, through all this you're missing the obvious: if they are really not voting out of bigotry, then they shouldn't care when the person they voted for wasn't the religion they thought they were. This action - faking religion to get office - only harms bigots. That's the point of it. |
So, is it okay to harm bigots?
Never ever mess around with democracy. People get a little nasty when you do that.
You don't want to end up with a neck brace like her.
She cheated now it's payback time.
Anyways, I think there's nothing wrong with lying about it in my opinion, neither admitting that you're an atheist. For me it's a matter of preference.
If you lie about it, that's because it's all just straight politics if that is your intention, to be a politician. In the first place, no one should drag religion into it. So you just have to lie to avoid people bugging you about something that has nothing to do with running a government. No big deal actually. Just a little thing you do to shut the kids up.
If you have an intention to represent the atheists and leave greater impact for the future of atheists in politics, then it might be safe to avoid the question. Never ever lie, it'll screw up everything. It's probably good to reveal it in the right time, perhaps after a job well done or when your term is already done.
I have lied about faith!
I had a penpal over myspace - i said i was a christian (ok i am within the state church) but I am really a polytheist!
The purpose was to start some kind of discussion about the differences between our state church and a natural church.
I'm not sure that I can agree that it is somehow immoral to vote or not vote for someone out of bigotry.
Voting is our chance to support someone we truly do (or don't) want. There are laws to protect us from bigotry out there in normal life. Could be stronger, sure. But voting is free, that is democracy.
A possible immoral vote, was the voting in of Hamas. But, that was what they wanted. So be it. That is democracy. (And the 'champions of democracy' supported whom?)
If there was a creationist running for parliament, I wouldn't vote for them. No matter how smart or otherwise. I am not going to vote for someone I think is highly immoral.
Likewise, they probably think the same about us. But that is democracy and we haven't found a better system yet.
Also, likewise, running for parliament under false pretences is undemocratic. Freedom of speech is an implied right in a democracy, and I think it follows that democracy also can't work if people are unable to know the truth about candidates.
However, I would partially agree with Loremar, if your intention is to be a 'champion' for atheism, you need to be clear, but if athiesm is just part of who you are and your intention in politics has nothing to do with it, I think you still need to be honest in this but don't make a song and dance about it.
Also repeating what Loremar is saying, if you lie about it, when it 'comes out' it will be a scandal and that isn't a good look for atheists.
If you want to get rid of bigotry, lying to worm your way into parliament isn't the right way to do it, IMHO.
Actually, come to think of it, we have a religious party like that, they try to appear like they are just conservative, and say things like 'family' and 'values' etc when really they are full-on Assembly of God hardcores.
Family First their name is. But no-one not conservative would have voted for them anyways. They just knew that if they put 'Assembly of God' Party no-one would have even bothered to look at their policies, and secondly half their purpose was to oppose the Greens and call them extremist but if they were known as a full on religo party people would have simply discounted their critisisms.
They did get one person in government, and given the minority government status, they have a bit of a voice. They got in largely off the preferences of Labor, so any anger is directed more at Labor then the party itself. But overall, I guess they were partially successful. It certainly doesn't make me think any better of religion or Assembly of God people.
But they didn't lie, just, kept 'nuetral' language, and still I'm annoyed by them.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | So, is it okay to harm bigots? |
Of course, and for the same reasons that it's okay to harm anyone trying to do harm. But there is the bigot, and there is the person; wherever possible, you should try to harm only the bigot, not the person.
Practical case, using the classic Nazi-Jew-hunting example: when you lie to the Nazis about where the Jews are hiding, you are hurting the bigot... but not the person. The bigot suffers because you are taking away their opportunity to do what they most want to do - killing Jews. The person doesn't suffer in the least (unless you misdirect them into a dangerous area, which you shouldn't unless necessary for other reasons).
Similarly, when you lie to a person who is voting for a leader for bigoted reasons, you hurt the bigot in them, but not them - certainly no more than they have to be hurt to defeat the bigot in them. They may actually benefit from having you as their leader (under the assumption that you actually will be a good leader).
This should be patently obvious, i would think. If someone is going to beat up someone else, you stop the assaulter - by preventing the beating, somehow - but you don't harm the person of the assaulter anymore than you have to to stop the assaulter; for example, you don't pluck out their eyes or chop off their head - there are ways to stop the assaulter while doing far less damage to their person than those methods, so using those methods would be immoral.
| Hello_World wrote: | I'm not sure that I can agree that it is somehow immoral to vote or not vote for someone out of bigotry.
Voting is our chance to support someone we truly do (or don't) want. There are laws to protect us from bigotry out there in normal life. Could be stronger, sure. But voting is free, that is democracy. |
Voting is not a private pastime. When you vote for something, you are doing it as part of a community or team effort - no-one votes alone. When you vote, you are actually carrying out a civic responsibility to select the person you think will be the best leader for the community (or whatever it is you are voting for). Voting is NOT just "pickin' who ya like". Freedom entails responsibility. You have been given the freedom to vote as you please... but also the responsibility to use that vote properly.
Voting from bigotry is violating your civic responsibility. In fact, if you can see a candidate that you know - by reasoned analysis - will do good for the community, but you refuse to vote for them and instead vote for someone who will harm the community solely because you prefer their hair style... you are, in effect, a traitor to the community. Put in practical terms, if i were American, and i voted Rick Perry for president even though i know he will be a horrible president, just because i think it would be funny to watch him do a shitty job (and, it probably would)... i would literally be an enemy to America.
Freedom means you can vote any way you please. But just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. i can shit in the cake batter for the cake i'm making to donate. Does that mean i should? No, in fact, i think any sane person would agree that i should NOT, regardless of whatever freedom i may have to do it. In fact, regardless of what freedom i may have to do something like putting pot in the cake batter, i have a responsibility to make sure that i don't make something that will make people sick, or cause other problems. (If you want a less drastic example, i could put peanut oil in the cake, and not say anything about it. But that would risk really hurting people with peanut allergies.) Yes, your freedom means you can vote any way you please, even in a bigoted manner... but your moral and civic responsibilities mean you should vote for the sake of the community, not your personal biases.
If you're using your vote to hurt atheists, or black people, or whatever group you're bigoted against... rather than for the good of the people in the community... then you no longer deserve the respect due to a person in the community.
| Hello_World wrote: | | If there was a creationist running for parliament, I wouldn't vote for them. No matter how smart or otherwise. I am not going to vote for someone I think is highly immoral. |
The question is why one would not vote for a creationist. If it's just because you don't like 'em, then you're wrong - you're a bigot.
However, if you're voting for a position where it will be necessary to make decisions based on science - or at least some kind of empirical research - then it does make sense to question whether a candidate can actually do that. A creationist clearly fails. The fact that they're a creationist means that they are a) scientifically illiterate, b) unable to make intelligent decisions on how to handle their lack of science knowledge (for example, a person that understands nothing about physics is not a fool if they trust a physicist when it matters) and c) proud of their stupidity. Any one of a), b) or c) would make a person a poor choice for most jobs.
The issue is that being black or atheist or whatever tells you nothing more of relevance about the candidate. So you know the candidate is black (or atheist); okay, but are they stupid or smart? No idea. Are they diplomatic or unable to work out compromises? No way to know. Are they going to bother to actually show up for work and do their jobs properly, or will they fart around on vacations half the time? You can't get that information from their race (or whether they're atheist).
By contrast, unlike being black or atheist, being a creationist does tell you many thing about the intelligence and mindset of the potential candidate. Not good things. That information can be used to vet a candidate meaningfully. That's not being a bigot - you are not pre-judging the candidate, you are judging the candidate based on meaningful data about them. You're using the fact that you have to be a friggin idiot to be a creationist to logically deduce that a creationist candidate is a friggin idiot... that's good reason not to vote for one.
|
