I don't mean to start a "religion versus atheism" comment battle, but just wanted to discuss the idea of moral responsibility. For context, I grew up in a Christian (Eastern Orthodox) household and attended church for some twenty-five years of my life - that is to say, the perspective of a believer is not lost on me, even though I am now agnostic.
For me, responsibility is irrevocably linked to the idea of care - caring for those other than myself makes me responsible for my actions, inasmuch as they impact those around me. That ranges from those I love (my partner, family, friends) to strangers on the street that I nonetheless "care" for, by recognizing our shared humanity. Care itself comes from the idea of finitude - specifically, the idea of fragility of life in the face of our mortal existence. If I'm being poetic, "living rightly" means a life that is spent caring for others, strengthening the bonds that link us in face of death. The consequences of our actions are felt precisely because of the finitude of our lives - all we've got is each other, and our responsibility is towards one another.
Religious morality of the other hand is best expressed in the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son (it's no wonder the three major religions are called "Abrahamic"). For a deeper dive into the idea, I recommend reading Kierkegaard's retelling of this story in Fear and Trembling - to recap however, God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, they travel to mountain where Abraham binds Isaac and lifts up the knife to kill him. At the last moment, God interrupts Abraham, and a ram is offered as sacrifice instead. This story, perhaps one of the most well-known stories from the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, goes directly against the idea of responsibility in moral judgments - Abraham does not falter, for he fully trusts his Lord, giving up his son in devotion to God's command. The idea of care or responsibility for ones actions is superseded by the belief that the will of God is, in fact, more important than caring for those around you. A true belief in an everlasting life presupposes a detachment from the world (as any cursory reading of writers such as Saint Augustine shows), in a way protecting and insulating the believer from truly coming to terms with the consequence of their actions (in this case, murdering their only son).
To sum it up, I just can't get behind the idea that a final judge is somehow required for having responsibility in moral judgments. In fact, the opposite is true - only through the secular faith that there is no better everlasting world can we form meaningful relationships and take full responsibility for our actions.
Why would you believe in a God whose morality isn't superior to yours? Conversely, if you care for those around you and you knew God's will was ultimately better for them, why would you not obey Him over your own judgements?
I'm not arguing that God's morality is somehow inferior to mine - I'm arguing that by trusting and obeying Him over my own moral judgement (I know murder is wrong, yet God tells me to kill someone), I am shifting responsibility for my own actions onto Him - Abraham's greatness is that he does not doubt the Lord. The ultimate accountability to God is inherently at odds with my responsibility for those around me.
"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Would you look your son in the eye as you lower the knife?
> The ultimate accountability to God is inherently at odds with my responsibility for those around me.
If you believe that God is more loving than you are, it is not at odds at all. In fact, if you want what's best for those around you, you are responsible to obey the Lord first and foremost, as he loves those around you more than you do. He also loves you more than you love yourself.
If, however, you don't trust in God's love, then you're totally right. You'd be obeying someone who you're not sure has your neighbors' best interest at heart, and thus abdicating your duty of care.
God ultimately saved Isaac so I'm not sure why Abraham's sacrifice would be a counter-example to God's love here. We can talk about all the people who actually died, seemingly by God's orders, in the Old Testament, but we don't know what happened to these people ultimately, given redemption and salvation by Christ. Death itself being conquered and eternal happiness being granted makes death a poor example of injustice.
I do believe we are talking about slightly different things here - you put an emphasis on God's love and His care for the world, while I focus on the human (Abraham's, etc) need to renounce the world and (by extension) the ties and moral responsibilities that bind us to it, in order to fully embrace God. Regardless, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to chat - I've had fun trying to work through and structure my thoughts on the topic.
I believe it varies from region to region. In my country natural springs are all around so fresh water is not a problem. But I remember reading medieval era memoirs how people get surprised traveling when others don't have as much access to springs.
OK, but to be fair, it's hard to suggest a meaningful alternative to "hate speech" to describe the conversations happening on Voat and other such platforms.
I think there’s space in this argument to admit that many subreddit which are not really so much a vile den of wretched filth that they objectively should be shut down, and yet in the current climate they certainly run a high risk that they would be.
“Cancel culture” has become absolutely mainstream, having now reached all the way into the NYT OpEd pages. One only has to look at the myriad firings and resignations of the last 7 days to understand that there is a real threat to diverse mindsets and the open marketplace of ideas which we once strived to support.
"The Citizenship Act provides the following requirements for naturalisation of those people who had arrived in the country after 1940, the majority of whom were ethnic Russians: knowledge of the Estonian language, Constitution and a pledge of loyalty to Estonia. The government offers free preparation courses for the examination on the Constitution and the Citizenship Act, and reimburses up to 380 euros for language studies."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anything particularly bad about this policy. Considering the fact that the Baltic countries were under Russian occupation for a while, I don't have much of a problem with them making those Russians who decide to stay learn the language. This is coming from an ethnic Russian whose family used to live in Latvia, and who now resides in Canada - learning English was also required here since I wanted to obtain Canadian citizenship.
You weren't born in Canada. That's why you had to take a language exam to gain citizenship. Estonia forces people born in the country of "wrong" ethnicity to go through naturalization process.
Let's not forget that the 'wrong ethnicity' invaded Estonia in the 1940s and occupied it until 1991. As someone who has spent enough time in Russian communities which outright refuse to learn the language of their host countries, it's a little hard to sympathize with those of my fellow countrymen who cannot even take a language exam while also wanting citizenship thanks to the Soviet Union's occupation of the Baltic states. But yes, I agree that my particular situation is, of course, different.
