Litmus test

[DoktorZ]

On another note, don't you think getting atheists to establish a code of internet conduct and shared values (beyond a lack of belief in god(s)) is a bit like herding cats? Not to open a can of worms, but I thought that was the philosophy behind Athiesm+, or whatever that site is called. I must confess I'm not particularly attracted to that sort of thing, mainly because I grew up around hardcore theists who were constantly micro-managing others' thought and behavior.

Z

I only want people to assess their own actions, which may, at times, requires that you speak up when people you otherwise like and align with are acting poorly. Personal ethics can negate the need for societal laws. True, we have legislation condemning murder, but that is a reflection of a basic human abhorrence for murder, not the reason we find murder abhorrent. If everyone applied ethical thinking about murder, the laws prohibiting it would be irrelevant.

I agree with the basic premise here--that people need to consider ethics closely, rather than simply obey laws. Effectively, you seem to be saying, "Produce the net culture you want to live in, because it also in part produces the people who live in it with you." Sure, I get that--it's why it's important to speak against things like slut-shaming. Still, I want to be careful that this sort of ideal doesn't slide into establishing and policing community standards. I also happen to think it's impossible to achieve--on the internet, at least, where the id reigns.

But, again, where people have different standards of behavior, like jonb's working class Britain (which I know only too well), then we come back again to enforcement, which is itself ethically thorny--and difficult to work out in a forum where the only thing we actually share is a DISbelief of something, not a belief in something.

Z