Imposing their views

[ProfessorDavey]

Under the one principle of life, that's an idiotic idea

Why - if you are working for or acting on behalf of an organisation it seems eminently sensible that you act in the interests of that organisation and those that it serves, not in your own personal interests. I think that holds in any job or role. Sure some people won't but they should - hence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life

Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

Integrity – Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

This is, of course, for public office, but most organisations will have something similar within their codes of professional conduct.

[ProfessorDavey]

and he reifies religions again beyond people. Bing!

Nice swerve NS.

I ask again:

Show me exactly where in this thread, or indeed elsewhere, where I have implied that religion is uniquely bad.

On this thread the starting point was me challenging Vlad's view that 'Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.'

My point was that there have been examples where religions have done exactly that - to suppress views, which are actually correct and backed up by evidence, that they felt went against doctrine and to persecute those making those views.

I did not say that all religions do this. Nor did I say that religions do this all the time. Nor did I say that all religious believers do this.

So stop misinterpreting what I said (and what I didn't say). Time to put up or shut up NS.

[Nearly Sane]

Nice swerve NS.

I ask again:

Show me exactly where in this thread, or indeed elsewhere, where I have implied that religion is uniquely bad.

On this thread the starting point was me challenging Vlad's view that 'Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.'

My point was that there have been examples where religions have done exactly that - to suppress views, which are actually correct and backed up by evidence, that they felt went against doctrine and to persecute those making those views.

I did not say that all religions do this. Nor did I say that religions do this all the time. Nor did I say that all religious believers do this.

So stop misinterpreting what I said (and what I didn't say). Time to put up or shut up NS.And thar

and yet again you think 'religions' do things.

[Nearly Sane]

Why - if you are working for or acting on behalf of an organisation it seems eminently sensible that you act in the interests of that organisation and those that it serves, not in your own personal interests. I think that holds in any job or role. Sure some people won't but they should - hence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life

Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

Integrity – Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

This is, of course, for public office, but most organisations will have something similar within their codes of professional conduct.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

[ProfessorDavey]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

I think you've popped that in the wrong places - but don't worry, I'll sort it in my next posts.

[ProfessorDavey]

Doesn't stop your ignorant idea of religion and the religious being a monolith being ignorant

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

[ProfessorDavey]

That you reify institutions as opposed to thinking of people is one of your many problems. In this case it leads you to missing that Copernicus was religious, and creating a simplistic us/them view.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

[Nearly Sane]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

Keep posting it. Maybe some time it will sink in.

[ProfessorDavey]

and yet again you think 'religions' do things.

And not just religions NS.

Companies do things.
Universities do things.
Governments do things.
Charities do things.
Hospitals do things.

etc etc.

If not how can you have anything beyond personal responsibility - no corporate responsibility, no institutional responsibility etc. So if someone is failed by an institution there would be no responsibility on that organisation, no expectation of remedy from that organisation. You'd only be able to go after the individuals, which of course may be extremely difficult if they have left that organisation or are even dead.

But that isn't the case - organisations retain responsibilities beyond that of their employees and beyond the point where those employees may have left or died. Why? Because organisations 'do' things.

[ProfessorDavey]

Keep posting it. Maybe some time it will sink in.

More swerving I see.

And while we are on it - still waiting for you to:

Show me exactly where in this thread, or indeed elsewhere, where I have implied that religion is uniquely bad.

On this thread the starting point was me challenging Vlad's view that 'Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.'

My point was that there have been examples where religions have done exactly that - to suppress views, which are actually correct and backed up by evidence, that they felt went against doctrine and to persecute those making those views.

I did not say that all religions do this. Nor did I say that religions do this all the time. Nor did I say that all religious believers do this.

So stop misinterpreting what I said (and what I didn't say). Time to put up or shut up NS.

As your old chum Hitchen's might opine - if you make those claims without evidence then I can simply dismiss them.

[Nearly Sane]

And not just religions NS.

Companies do things.
Universities do things.
Governments do things.
Charities do things.
Hospitals do things.

etc etc.

If not how can you have anything beyond personal responsibility - no corporate responsibility, no institutional responsibility etc. So if someone is failed by an institution there would be no responsibility on that organisation, no expectation of remedy from that organisation. You'd only be able to go after the individuals, which of course may be extremely difficult if they have left that organisation or are even dead.

But that isn't the case - organisations retain responsibilities beyond that of their employees and beyond the point where those employees may have left or died. Why? Because organisations 'do' things.

Drivel.

[Nearly Sane]

More swerving I see.

And while we are on it - still waiting for you to:

Show me exactly where in this thread, or indeed elsewhere, where I have implied that religion is uniquely bad.

On this thread the starting point was me challenging Vlad's view that 'Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.'

My point was that there have been examples where religions have done exactly that - to suppress views, which are actually correct and backed up by evidence, that they felt went against doctrine and to persecute those making those views.

I did not say that all religions do this. Nor did I say that religions do this all the time. Nor did I say that all religious believers do this.

So stop misinterpreting what I said (and what I didn't say). Time to put up or shut up NS.

As your old chum Hitchen's might opine - if you make those claims without evidence then I can simply dismiss them.

more drivel

[ProfessorDavey]

Drivel.

Hitchens says this comment can be dismissed.

[Steve H]

Drivel.

Not a terribly helpful comment. Why is it drivel? Either explain why, or don't comment, I suggest.

[ProfessorDavey]

more drivel

Hitchens says this comment can also be dismissed.

Anything useful to add to the discussion NS. I'm assuming that you are never going to justify your earlier claims that I see "religion and the religious being a monolith" or that I think that religion "is somehow a uniquely bad thing beamed from the planet Theos". Just two of a number of claims that I never made.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not a terribly helpful comment. Why is it drivel? Either explain why, or don't comment, I suggest.

I wouldn't hold your breath Steve.

[ProfessorDavey]

Drivel.

If it is drivel NS, how come if I am harmed I can take a company to court - surely if the only things doing the 'doing' are individuals this would make no sense. The company couldn't have done me harm because companies don't do things, so I wouldn't be able to take action against the company only against individuals. The reality is that the company may be liable because the company is considered to be responsible for doing the thing that has harmed me. Or perhaps you've never heard of corporate negligence.

[Steve H]

If it is drivel NS, how come if I am harmed I can take a company to court - surely if the only things doing the 'doing' are individuals this would make no sense. The company couldn't have done me harm because companies don't do things, so I wouldn't be able to take action against the company only against individuals. The reality is that the company may be liable because the company is considered to be responsible for doing the thing that has harmed me. Or perhaps you've never heard of corporate negligence.

It looks as though NS is indulging in ontological reductionism.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think that companies and hospitals may be a separate legal entity but when discussing morality it is the people within them who are held accountable for the decisions they make - those decisions may be made collectively after a discussion of what is in the best interests of themselves, or individually e.g the board of directors or the H&S manager or the nurse or the doctor. If multiple people were involved in signing off on a system or process that turned out to be problematic then it might not be possible to identify and hold individuals accountable for their poor decisions. If organisations are taken to court it is based on legal accountability, not moral accountability. Individuals within the organisation are often also held legally accountable.

For example, when people claim the police is institutionally racist, they mean the people who made the decisions on how recruitment and training is conducted have put in place systems that mean white people will relate to and mainly hire white people who may have unconscious biases and lack of experience of other cultures, which affect the decisions that those white police officers make when policing. So they started recruiting more ethnic minority police officers who could relate to and understand the demeanour of ethnic minority members of the public and probably so that white police officers would have more opportunities to experience and become familiar with the cultural differences of their colleagues. If the individuals in the organisation do not change their outlook, the organisation cannot change. 

I agree that the people making those decisions in organisations are mainly driven by self-interest as they know they will be held accountable for their decisions by other people - e.g. the public, the shareholders, the owners of the capital - and may lose their position in the organisation once judged. 

So I think it is correct to say governments, courts and religions don't do things, but rather the individuals within them, driven by self-interest, who do things. Individuals interpret laws, policies, religious doctrines.

Hence the question being asked is how is some religious people some of the time persecuting people for their ideas any different from some politicians or Twitter users some of the time persecuting people for their ideas? It does not seem like religion is necessary for dogmatic approaches to flourish and stifle and persecute people for thoughts and ideas - because it seems it is part of human nature to be dogmatic in a variety of contexts and organisations and institutions and if people with a dogmatic tendency get into a position of power in an institution or on a platform that allows them influence over others, then there can be some seem unpleasant consequences until they are removed or leave. 

[Nearly Sane]

If it is drivel NS, how come if I am harmed I can take a company to court - surely if the only things doing the 'doing' are individuals this would make no sense. The company couldn't have done me harm because companies don't do things, so I wouldn't be able to take action against the company only against individuals. The reality is that the company may be liable because the company is considered to be responsible for doing the thing that has harmed me. Or perhaps you've never heard of corporate negligence.

it's called a legal fiction. Emphasis on the fiction.

[Nearly Sane]

Hitchens says this comment can also be dismissed.

Anything useful to add to the discussion NS. I'm assuming that you are never going to justify your earlier claims that I see "religion and the religious being a monolith" or that I think that religion "is somehow a uniquely bad thing beamed from the planet Theos". Just two of a number of claims that I never made.

When you are trying to think, does it look like this?

[ProfessorDavey]

it's called a legal fiction. Emphasis on the fiction.

No it isn't - it is a well established convention that organisations have responsibilities that aren't merely cumulative individual responsibility. And this is why it is commonplace to take legal action against an organisation and this can be the case in situations where there is no suggestion of individual negligence. In fact you can take retrospective action against an organisations (with its current board and employees) even when the original harm occurred years ago and involving a completely different set of board members and employees.

This is because you cannot detach the corporate ethos and responsibilities from what individual employees do. When you work for a organisation your ability to take decisions that you might take in a private setting is curtailed by your responsibility to the organisation.

[ProfessorDavey]

So I think it is correct to say governments, courts and religions don't do things, but rather the individuals within them, driven by self-interest, who do things.

The notion that a judge or magistrate decides on a case based on their self interest is both terrifying and completely counter to how those people are required to act when conducting those public duties. Any person in a public office that is taking decisions driven by self interest, rather than public interest, would be breaching their obligations under the Nolan principles.

[Nearly Sane]

No it isn't - it is a well established convention that organisations have responsibilities that aren't merely cumulative individual responsibility. And this is why it is commonplace to take legal action against an organisation and this can be the case in situations where there is no suggestion of individual negligence. In fact you can take retrospective action against an organisations (with its current board and employees) even when the original harm occurred years ago and involving a completely different set of board members and employees.

This is because you cannot detach the corporate ethos and responsibilities from what individual employees do. When you work for a organisation your ability to take decisions that you might take in a private setting is curtailed by your responsibility to the organisation.

None of that deals with it being a legal fiction.

[Nearly Sane]

The notion that a judge or magistrate decides on a case based on their self interest is both terrifying and completely counter to how those people are required to act when conducting those public duties. Any person in a public office that is taking decisions driven by self interest, rather than public interest, would be breaching their obligations under the Nolan principles.

Facts are often terrifying