saralynn - 26 November 2011 11:31 AM

Mario: Any atheist who cannot see the benefit of religion as a moral compass throughout history is irrational and ignorant.

Any atheist who throws out the Bible, the greatest and most positively influential book ever written, because he or she finds some of the stories offensive to their “highly-developed” (...cough..) moral sensibilities is foolish and moronic.

Know this, Project Reason: This single Bible passage spoken by Jesus and quoted above has done more to inspire humanity to care for each other than the culmination of every word written by every secular writer who ever lived.

And to not realize this, and to go so far as to ridicule the passage as “pointless”, is to show to me and the whole world that atheism is often more propaganda than substance. No surprise here.

Well, hard to admit this, but, I agree with Mario, sans insults to atheists

I would say that Christianity has been a force for good and evil.  Same with the Bible, depending on who reads it, how it is interpreted, and what passages you focus upon. Literal interpretation by zealots, either the Christian or atheist variety, are narrow minded and foolish.  To say the Bible is a load of crap seems extreme to me, unless you are reading it in the same light as Fundamentalists do. I have been and still am inspired by many things in the Bible and so have countless people throughout history, including people much brighter and talented than any of us are on Project Reason.  If you really can’t see this, GAD, you have lost credibility in my eyes as an objective thinker and observer.

Although GAD did not respond to the charges directly, by “pointless,” I think GAD was referring to the default implication that the Bible need be referenced as the ultimate purveyor of morality, not that the morality of parts of it is at odds with any other impetus. In that case, I thought it was pointless. Then, I had to think that dusty referenced it on the assumption (or perhaps known fact) that the photographer was a Christian, thereby attempting to present an irony, or as an emphasis on the fact that an Atheist can be just as morally grounded (and often moreso) as a religionist, especially as dusty said, he’s the one who presented the OP and issue as he did. I am given to speculation because the “point” of it other than convenience and familiarity has still not been clarified. Any number of secular references (manifestos, declarations, Atheist philosophers) could have been used to make the same point, so the religious one limited to a singular authoritative figure is curious. Afterall, it was Comte who coined the word “Altruism,” [Altruism /ˈæltruːɪzəm/ is a concern for the welfare of others.]

With regard to Mario’s claim about the Bible being the greatest inspiration for humanism over the cumulative secular writings of history, there are some relevant issues to consider: the Bible and organized religion has been around for a long time and taught to a greater number of people; there are other religious text that promote the same thing; Secular Humanism has been around for a short-period and doesn’t get as much air-time, and we are in a relatively early stage of transition (a renaissance) from religious dominance. I’m sure there are other factors that can be added that will deflate Mario’s bubble making his notation further “pointless.” It’s simply another opportunity for him to defend his God and disparage Atheists. He thinks he’s won something significant but in fact hasn’t.

The religion of humanity
Positivist temple in Porto Alegre

In later life, Comte developed a ‘religion of humanity’ for positivist societies in order to fulfil the cohesive function once held by traditional worship. In 1849, he proposed a calendar reform called the ‘positivist calendar’. For close associate John Stuart Mill, it was possible to distinguish between a “good Comte” (the author of the Course in Positive Philosophy) and a “bad Comte” (the author of the secular-religious system).[6] The system was unsuccessful but met with the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species to influence the proliferation of various Secular Humanist organizations in the 19th century, especially through the work of secularists such as George Holyoake and Richard Congreve. Although Comte’s English followers, including George Eliot and Harriet Martineau, for the most part rejected the full gloomy panoply of his system, they liked the idea of a religion of humanity and his injunction to “vivre pour autrui” (“live for others”), from which comes the word “altruism”).[13]

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

With regard to the story, it is indeed a tragedy all the way around on many levels. I don’t think that I consider it justice so much as a question and study of human psychological and social behavior. The morality or ethics of the first part (act of omission), I would think, has certainly got to be unanimously conferred even amongst relativists, the second part (act of commission), while understandable, is quite complex. None of this has to do with religion.

Well, it appears my last post is late, you’re hashing it out. Carry on.

stardust91977 - 29 November 2011 10:17 AM

If the story were about a theist who refused to help that child because whatever happened was “gods will” most of you would be screeching like a bunch of scalded dogs. But a guy does that to make a buck and it must somehow be justifiable.

Probably true in at least some cases, though I doubt anyone would really defend the idea that the inaction was justifiable rather than potentially understandable as the tragic result of an emotionally handicapped and tortured mind. Heated contention just make people feel like they have to be more defensive about a wider range of issues surrounding a position in which they’ve invested.

stardust91977 - 28 November 2011 09:26 PM

Skeptic, rubbish re: a step down the same path.  It’s not in my nature to walk away from those who are suffering ...

It’s not in anyone’s nature unless something is terribly wrong—precisely.

As I said in so many words at the outset, the indication here is that Carter came into that situation as a victim himself, precisely because of its extreme nature. “What happened to the man, in this case to make such a thing optional?” Whole, unbroken people don’t behave that way.

So Carter’s response to the situation should raise the question of what could have caused him to commit such a terrible inaction, and as I also already pointed out, even a quick look into his history makes it pretty obvious that he almost certainly did, in fact, encounter that situation as a highly traumatized repeat victim of extreme violence, and some of the worst horrors life can visit upon people. It’s not hard to imagine that his profession, his talents, the way he viewed the world, all only amplified such experiences and imposed a graphic, vivid, visceral form of ownership upon him for the acts and events he’d captured in his photos. Again obvious is how all of that would have opened him up to the standard issue harsh, brutal, utterly narcissistic public response to them.

stardust91977 - 28 November 2011 09:26 PM

It’s not in my nature to walk away from those who are suffering, not even from someone who would walk away from a starving child without picking her up and carrying her the paltry distance to the food center.

Actually that seems to be exactly what you’re doing. It looks to me like you’re very harshly judging a victim of profound violence and horror for running into a situation he couldn’t handle at all appropriately because of the emotional handicap all of that tragedy had imposed upon him.

stardust91977 - 28 November 2011 09:26 PM

As for passing judgement on someone who refused to pick up an obviously desperate child and carry her that small distance, you’re damn right I do.

You need to give some consideration to how dissociation and/or other serious emotional issues occur, and how the indications in this case suggest such issues very likely set Carter up for profound moral failure in that situation. You’d understand if someone with PTSD failed to act appropriately in a violent situation. This would just be a less energetically intense manifestation of the same kind of handicap. And how you and others feel about it is irrelevant to what’s real and true.

If you’d seen Carter’s trauma destroying him before the event in the picture here, you would have felt compassion for him, and I’d hope you’d recognize the dual tragedy of this incident rather than to feel satisfied that he’d done himself “poetic justice” when it all overwhelmed him to the extent that he felt the need to just shut it all off permanently. That this was how he dealt with it is still another pretty clear indication that something had gone very wrong with him, and it had set him up to face the horrifying reality of his inaction once whatever emotional misfire disabled his moral compass cleared up. Needless to say he did without the benefit of much in the way of fair, responsible consideration or compassion from the public at large.

stardust91977 - 28 November 2011 09:26 PM

If it bothers you, it’s just too damn bad.

Now turn that perfectly appropriate attitude inward, but try to sterilize it first (does no good if it’s all colored by rage). What bothers others, or you, is irrelevant. Now try and consider the event in question in a more emotionally neutral, open-minded context. See if you notice the obvious without a thick, black cloud of vengeful rage obscuring your view.

Again, your rage is entirely understandable, at least initially, but it tends to only produce more victims if, as in this case, people can’t get to a point at which they can see past their rage, or at least keep it from overwhelming their perceptions and their thinking.

stardust91977 - 28 November 2011 09:26 PM

At least I’m not sitting around trying to make up reasons why it might have EVER been okay do such a thing.

I’m certainly not either.

stardust91977 - 28 November 2011 09:26 PM

What a fucked up world we’re living in.

Precisely. And it’s most profound extremes of experience tend to have the most powerful effects on the most sensitive—something that should also come to mind when you see a situation as horrible as the one in question here. I’m certainly not arguing that Carter’s inaction was justified, only that such behavior suggests very strongly to me that he was an emotionally broken man who didn’t have enough remaining strength to handle yet more tragedy. It seems a pretty obvious probability to me, and apparently to others as well.

Answerer,  seriously, I wasn’t trying to say anything at all about religion or theism or atheism. The primary reason I put the thread here, in the Christianity section, was because I was going to include the quote from the Bible. Of course, I could have used a quote from something other than a religious text, and opened the thread in the philosophy section. However, the fact of the matter is that I’m an humanist who has outgrown the tendency to read religious texts as though man is talking about a “God” rather than about himself and the forces of nature.  For me, the passage from the Bible is just a quote from a book that fit the image being presented as well as the story of the man who took the picture. 

The quote from the Humanist Manifesto was quite fitting and I thank you for taking the time to post it.

Also, I’m a she, not a he.

stardust91977 - 29 November 2011 12:14 PM

Answerer,  seriously, I wasn’t trying to say anything at all about religion or theism or atheism. The primary reason I put the thread here, in the Christianity section, was because I was going to include the quote from the Bible. Of course, I could have used a quote from something other than a religious text, and opened the thread in the philosophy section. However, the fact of the matter is that I’m an humanist who has outgrown the tendency to read religious texts as though man is talking about a “God” rather than about himself and the forces of nature.  For me, the passage from the Bible is just a quote from a book that fit the image being presented as well as the story of the man who took the picture. 

The quote from the Humanist Manifesto was quite fitting and I thank you for taking the time to post it.

Thanks for the clarification. I understand.

Also, I’m a she, not a he.

I like she’s ... a lot. 

Oh Skeptic, do not make the mistake of thinking that I have no empathy for Carter.  Not only have I been the victim of violence and a witness to violence and suffering, but the despair has threatened to overwhelm me on many occasions, even to the point of contemplating suicide. Repeatedly bearing witness to the tragedies of the world has been a soul-sucking experience for everyone I know who has done so. That, however, does not alter the fact that I believe his lack of action to have been unethical.  You can be hurt, you can be depressed, you can be manic, you can be angry, you can be resolved, and still do the right thing.

Tell me, what do you think he would have done if he’d gotten off that plane and seen his own child or sibling sitting there like that? Do you think he would have sat by waiting to snap a photo of the vulture spreading it’s wings and attacking the child.. hoping for the perfect shot.. and then left the child to make her own way to the food center?

stardust91977 - 29 November 2011 12:39 PM

Oh Skeptic, do not make the mistake of thinking that I have no empathy for Carter.  Not only have I been the victim of violence and a witness to violence and suffering, but the despair has threatened to overwhelm me on many occasions, even to the point of contemplating suicide. Repeatedly bearing witness to the tragedies of the world has been a soul-sucking experience for everyone I know who has done so. That, however, does not alter the fact that I believe his lack of action to have been unethical.  You can be hurt, you can be depressed, you can be manic, you can be angry, you can be resolved, and still do the right thing.

You’re talking about normal psyches, not disorders, much less an emotional handicap.

Did you read about dissociation, for an example? If the situation psychologically put Carter in kind of a dream world (i.e. his perception of the situation dissociated it from him so it seemed unreal), then he wouldn’t respond to it as he would if he perceived it as real. That’s an example. I’d think some kind of dissociation almost had to happen.

stardust91977 - 29 November 2011 12:39 PM

Tell me, what do you think he would have done if he’d gotten off that plane and seen his own child or sibling sitting there like that?

No idea, though I suspect the direct attachment would likely have either exacerbated the problem, or suppressed it, or anything in-between ... assuming the indications aren’t misleading. You can’t second guess a malfunctioning psyche according to what people with more or less healthy psyches would or wouldn’t think or do.

stardust91977 - 29 November 2011 12:39 PM

Do you think he would have sat by waiting to snap a photo of the vulture spreading it’s wings and attacking the child.. hoping for the perfect shot.. and then left the child to make her own way to the food center?

I’ve never even suggested that his inaction was the right thing to not do, or okay, or that if he were functioning at all normally it would even begin to be justifiable. Quite the contrary. I’ve pointed out the fact that it was so egregious should give you pause, because psychologically and emotionally intact people don’t behave that way.

Skeptic, I absolutely get your point about the effects of mental illness can have on a person’s ability to make good decisions, however, suffering from a mental illness or disorder does not necessarily mean that a person is disabled, or that Carter was disabled.

In Carter’s case, the guy was a self-proclaimed “adrenaline junkie” who put himself into horrific situations as much to chase after the high and to make a living as a photojournalist as to expose the horrors of oppression, war, and famine. Now, I’m rational enough to appreciate that our first instinct is to self-preservation, and to comprehend how even the most decent and courageous individuals can be overcome with shock and fear at the site of intense cruelty and suffering. But I’m also wise enough to know that failing to do for others what you would want them to do for you can have dire consequences on the mental health of the individual, including being riddled with guilt, racked with shame, and debilitated by severe depression and anxiety.  In fact, I suspect that the repercussions of watching others suffer so miserably without intervening may be much worse than the repercussions of having been there in the first place. In others words, people who do such things make themselves sick. Not only that, they make the world sick. Don’t believe me? Just take a look at the way people are defending this man who could sit in one spot for twenty minutes in hopes of getting a picture but couldn’t pick up a struggling child and carry her to a center that was less than a 20 minute walk away.

In regards to your assertion that emotionally intact people wouldn’t walk away from a starving child, I will simply step out of the way so that you can see all the people unnecessarily falling by the wayside as the rich get richer, the fat get fatter, people wage wars of convenience, and entire populations are decimated by greed and indifference.

stardust91977 - 29 November 2011 05:47 PM

Skeptic, I absolutely get your point about the effects of mental illness can have on a person’s ability to make good decisions, however, suffering from a mental illness or disorder does not necessarily mean that a person is disabled, or that Carter was disabled.

No, but the facts in the case in question suggest it. You’re detaching this portion of your analysis from the scenario you’re allegedly analyzing.

stardust91977 - 29 November 2011 05:47 PM

In Carter’s case, the guy was a self-proclaimed “adrenaline junkie” who put himself into horrific situations as much to chase after the high and to make a living as a photojournalist as to expose the horrors of oppression, war, and famine. Now, I’m rational enough to appreciate that our first instinct is to self-preservation, and to comprehend how even the most decent and courageous individuals can be overcome with shock and fear at the site of intense cruelty and suffering. But I’m also wise enough to know that failing to do for others what you would want them to do for you can have dire consequences on the mental health of the individual, including being riddled with guilt, racked with shame, and debilitated by severe depression and anxiety.  In fact, I suspect that the repercussions of watching others suffer so miserably without intervening may be much worse than the repercussions of having been there in the first place. In others words, people who do such things make themselves sick. Not only that, they make the world sick. Don’t believe me? Just take a look at the way people are defending this man who could sit in one spot for twenty minutes in hopes of getting a picture but couldn’t pick up a struggling child and carry her to a center that was less than a 20 minute walk away.

Every point you make is about imposing the burden of any and all doubt upon Carter.

stardust91977 - 29 November 2011 05:47 PM

In regards to your assertion that emotionally intact people wouldn’t walk away from a starving child, I will simply step out of the way so that you can see all the people unnecessarily falling by the wayside as the rich get richer, the fat get fatter, people wage wars of convenience, and entire populations are decimated by greed and indifference.

All good examples of the difference between walking away from a starving child, live and in person, and separating one’s self from the consequences of one’s choices precisely because emotionally intact people don’t do the former, and need that separation.

SkepticX - 28 November 2011 05:16 PM

As I said initially; what happened to the man in order to allow him to think helping the child was optional? Until I answered that question I certainly wouldn’t presume to judge him. Life can be very hard on people and do terrible things to them and their minds. And aside from that I can’t just ignore the pain and suffering of his family, much less derive personal satisfaction from the event that caused it just because it itself was borne of tragedy—multiple tragedies—an all too short lifetime of them.

Looking even briefly into the guy’s history tells me factors like a traumatic emotional disorders from all the horrible, serious violence he’d witnessed up close and personal and documented (which imposes a form of ownership), a neurochemical imbalance, or psychological issues like dissociation all would have to be ruled out before even beginning to get a handle on how such a thing actually happened.

There’s nothing but tragedy in the story behind this photo. Nothing. The fact that many actually feel satisfaction ... well, I’ll just say that only adds another terrible, terrible layer to an already profoundly horrible situation.

I think you hit it out of the park. I was thinking the same thing as I read other posts to this thread. No properly functioning human would act in the manner described.  I cant imagine being witness to this I think it is possible to become desensitized but what lies beyond that point?  If what I gather is true ( and I must assume quite a bit ) the man was more of a robot or zombie taking pictures.  At what point can a man be dead inside and still walk around and function? I wonder that as I think of the Holocaust and the Jews who’s job it would be to stoke the ovens. I think a more fitting bible passage would have been Judge not, lest ye be judged. But I wouldn’t quote the bible.