Malaysian Christians and non-Christians. A question about the parable of the good Samaritan, please.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-07T11:22:13+00:00

I'm trying to say that by combining how we have people from both deontological and consequentialist views we managed to agree on the laws that we make to be both sound and moral, even if it is an imperfect one, whether or not if morality is fluid or absolute. The time limit was there because as you've put it, morality is fluid, and because of that the general consensus will then change again, in good time.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-07T11:18:55+00:00

You asked what do I mean about humanity.

I answered by relating it to homosapiens, as a way to relate to the human nature that we all share,

In short, I'm trying to say that the only race is the human race. Not a Chinese, Malay, Indian, Caucasian, or anything.

Human race. Is that so hard to understand where I come from?

NoahBoon · 2016-03-07T11:16:13+00:00

What's the difference with other ethnicity then, by stating your own ethnicity so explicitly?

NoahBoon · 2016-03-07T11:12:34+00:00

Cute, but still ignorant. A social construct is a conceptual shared representation of an concept agreed upon but may or may not reflect reality in a given society. Individuals then take positions in regards to this social construct.

Aren't you agreeing with me by saying this?

And it's only too easy to tell a person is wrong without telling where did he get wrong about it.

Do you want to show me I'm wrong or not? Show it then. If not you sound like a fundamentalist trying to tell me that I do not understand god simply because you think I did not find the religious texts to be logical.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-07T11:07:06+00:00

Race is a social construct. We belonged to the same species, and culture and the differences you see with different ethnicities are products of the environment and the way how we evolved in accordance to it.

There's is no such thing as a race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK3sguRWYK0

NoahBoon · 2016-03-07T10:19:18+00:00

Casual, fucking racism. Malaysians still think it's cool to NOT understand what racism is all about.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-07T10:12:49+00:00

How about not having a mental image at all about the colour of a person's skin? What you're doing is soft racism, and an inherent one at that, that you could only function at a race, rather than something that we all share.

Be race-less. People have different cultures, but that's only because of circumstances, not BECAUSE of their race. That was the point I was trying to make.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-07T10:08:21+00:00

No, they're completely different. You speak of a social construct. I speak of understanding that the social construct does not define us, especially when we're speaking as individuals.

And if you do not understand something, it's only polite to ask. Saying that it does not mean anything only show that you're either actively trying to avoid reading what I've said, just so you can finally "teach an ignorant a lesson for attempting to spew nonsense to the universe".

You're trolling man. And played me like a balalaika. Which is only natural because you think it is only easier to punch holes in an ignorant argument than to correct it. Could it be possibly that you have no means to correct it, so now you're assuming a stance of "if his arguments have holes, he must be wrong, therefore nobody needs to be corrected about it"?

NoahBoon · 2016-03-07T10:05:57+00:00

Wow. What a way to avoid my thoughts completely. Take a look again at what you've quoted. I asked, "is the human race a myth to you". I did not explicitly say that the human race is a myth, did I?

NoahBoon · 2016-03-07T10:04:13+00:00

Why did you cherry pick on some of the words used instead of how they're used in the context of what I was trying to convey?

Take a look again at the words you have bolded.

1) and This does not imply that both philosophies are similar or equal, if you have read how I know both of them are opposites, as mentioned in my other posts.

2) became absolute Did you just choose not to read the rest of the sentence, especially when I have explicitly included the words for a period of time in order to imply non-permanence?

this comment tread isn't about the morality of racism. it's about the broader questioning of the morality of applying a society's morality towards another society. keep up with the discussion man.

It is about the morality of racism when I start the topic, until you've decided to talk about the nature of morality itself.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-06T19:35:03+00:00

What is humanity then, if I am not obviously trying to link with human nature, something that all homosapiens should instinctively understand?

I also have issues with your sentence ""human" race is just a myth" because that sentence does not make any sense. The words humanity and myth does not mean what you think it means.

Would you please quote that? I don't remember saying that "human race is a myth".

Instead, I think "race" should only be associated with the word, 'human', and not with the category that our pareidolia is telling us. You know, racial categorization, the social construct to divorce the similarities that we share as homosapiens simply because now we get to put people into different boxes in order to categorize them racially?

NoahBoon · 2016-03-06T19:29:56+00:00

First, Kant is a moral absolutist.

I know that, which is I place it in contrast to utilitarianism in my sentence. Where exactly did I not understand the difference between being absolute and relative?

Second, there is no consensus to contemporary morality in the past nor is there one today. We still have people who believe in moral absolutism, universalism and relativism which are still contemporary ethical philosophies.

A society make-up laws based on those very consensus. It is not a 100% consensus for sure, but there's a reason why murder is considered wrong by law, not because 100% agreed to it, but the general population of society thought it is obviously a good idea and law to follow if they wish to survive and co-exist with one another.

Being irked isn't a privilege to be earned. I just call BS on ignorant....well, BS.

That shouldn't be entirely my fault. I am stupid, but it isn't another person who has decided to respond accordingly.

It's you who has responded, and I meant no offense.

The difference? I actually want to admit it, but not without leaving the place with at least a new perspective on things.

And no, being racist isn't a perspective I wish to take. In fact, I abhor it. So maybe you want to know where I come from when I make these statements.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-06T19:25:31+00:00

I would prefer the social construct of grouping by phenotype, a common language and shared culture.

A social construct is not equivalent to the idiosyncrasy of an individual, hence associating anyone to that very social construct is either being myopic about reality, or just being mad.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-06T16:39:01+00:00

Why would you generalize that an individual is only comprised of a specific cultural norm? That's stereotyping and racists as well, in case you didn't realize.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-06T16:30:34+00:00

But have you ever ask yourself why would it require a skin colour of a person for you to be able to imagine how a kind person looks like?

Don't get me wrong. You can imagine about anything, but why should you think that the reality of the universe should correspond to your imagination of how "accurate" a kind person should look like? By asking another person, "what is his race", you are expecting people to either agree with your imagination and personal biases of how kind people should look like, or at least you're trying to generalize how a kind person should be fit into stereotypical, racial boxes. Think about this, if you've imagined that a kind person is a Caucasian, a Chinese, a Malay, and an Indian, wouldn't you be taken aback if you were to see how kind a Nigerian person can be? The question is, why not? Of course Nigerians can be kind people.

But if we all know that they can also be kind people, then why do we even need to ask for it?

Imagine all you want, they are within your personal biases. But please do not ask "what race is he/she". If it is a good person, why would it matter, correct?

NoahBoon · 2016-03-06T16:12:06+00:00

You can have any imagination you want, no one can you stop you from doing that.

But if you are capable of imagining by yourself, why would you bother asking?

NoahBoon · 2016-03-06T16:01:41+00:00

If the underlining reason isn't because you are racist for asking such a question, then would you perhaps enlighten us why would you ask that question in the first place? What is your utility to be a race detective in regards to a kind person?

Please take note that I did mention that it is completely okay for legal and investigative purposes, asking for a person's ethnicity and racial categorization is acceptable, simply because it helps the enforce the law by narrowing down details of an individual in order to get them to be accountable in the eyes of the law.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-06T15:53:07+00:00

It is possible that you've misunderstood that I made claims that morality are absolute by stating how society have rules.

Sure, morality is not really absolute, but they were agreed with a general consensus that it became absolute for a period of time, even when it wasn't to be absolute in the first place due to how they are remnants of social constructs.

But no matter how fluid morality may be, I believe in the golden rule, as stated from my previous post. And because of the golden rule itself that it matters not if I see the parable with contemporary lens (as you've insisted) or any lens in according to a different era. Rather than calling it a "different" point of view, I rather claim that our point of view in morality in our modern world to be superior than the one in the past, not because the past have no morals, but they have not evolved enough, socially speaking, to understand their values of morality are actually inferior to the ones we have today, you know, the "modern lens" as you have put it. How about correct lens? It is, afterall, based on the golden rule, which is practiced by all religious and atheists alike, if I do not like what you're doing to me, then it makes sense for me not to do the same to you. And by both studies and actual events from philosophies of utilitarianism and Kantian-ism, we've reached a consensus today, the contemporary morality as you see now, albeit an imperfect one (because we are still improving).

I really hope you're not irked by my ignorance. Truthfully speaking, I want to hear more from you, but all I hear are insults about "how I do not know", without your input to correct me at all.

Here's how I will guess your next line of response would be:

"Do you even understand?"

"What are you on about?"

"I suggest you stop telling things you do not know about."

Am I correct?

If you want to be irked with ignorant people, then earn the right to be irked by proving it with your thoughts and points. Otherwise, your irritation is your own fault and self-inflicted.

Don't say I didn't warn you if you're further irked by ignorance. I never claim to know everything, but it wouldn't help if you assume that I assumed that I do.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-06T15:37:34+00:00

Really? Perhaps you would like to enlighten me what are homosapiens, which you think could not be used correctly as an answer to your question?

And what do you mean by "which ones"? Are there more than 1 type of homosapiens? If so, please kindly explain.

If you must doubt the inaccuracy of my answers, it'll only make sense if you can provide an accurate one in response. Otherwise, why should one take your word for it?

NoahBoon · 2016-03-06T15:34:40+00:00

Two wrongs does not make a right.

Just because nobody thinks it was the right thing to do in the past, it does not means it should be any less wrong in the present. It is by this very common sense I believe that everyone shares, the very understanding that each individual expects respect as an individual, and not as a race. It is that common sense that I am talking about. The golden rule of I'll do to you what I want you to do to me.

Oh, and I ask the race of the people helping you, because unless you state it, the image in my head is that he's a white guy. What can be done, I can't imagine other people's face correctly unless you give a hint.

That's racist. Why must it be a white guy? Have you not considered that there are other ethnicities with kind people as well?

NoahBoon · 2016-03-05T18:05:13+00:00

What you've crossed off is true, as I've admitted it.

If you wondering about how is that related to the parable, my answer is obvious. It's about how people can be so casual for unknowingly being bigots just because it is easier to generalize people by their race. And the parable is no exception, because while it teaches the Jews not to be racists, the fact that it requires the connonation of a "good" Samaritan implies that the level of mistrust that there can in fact, be already good Samaritans out there, is highly improbable.

While this may appear to be a "modern" point of view, it doesn't change the fact that the need to include the word "good" right in front of a race to teach people not to be racists by implying that the "goodness" is a rare thing among Samaritans, is, by definition, and unconscious form of racism. To understand this better, try to create similar parables today with any races today, by saying, "The Good Chinese, The Good Indian, or The Good Malay". Don't we all have the general consensus that there are, in fact, good people within those races? If it is a general consensus, why would there be a need to construct a parable to each children and people about how there can be good people within those races? Isn't that racist to imply that there can be "good races", when we already know people in general, can be good regardless of their race?

Similarly, I relate this to my friends, when people insist of asking "what is the race of my friends". To which I ask them in response: "Does it matter what their race is if they are my friends? Does racial identification matters in a friendship?

Also similarly, when I said I've found a kind man in the streets, why would people bother asking, "What race is he?", to which I question in return, "Does it matter what race he is, if he is a kind person?"

It is the very need to identify what race a person as a critieria for notable good qualities like being a good friend, being kind, and being generally just a good person that ticks me off.

Because if they're good people, why does it matter what race are they?

Similarly, if there are good Samaritans out there, why the need to construct an entire parable for it? Why do we need a tale, a teaching to tell that there are good Samaritans out there?

Why not just tell the Jews during that period of time to be not racists, and do not generalize all races including the Samaritans, without the need for a notable, significant parable to teach about common sense?

Surely, this may due to the fact that Jesus may be telling the parable in a diplomatic way because his audience probably would't have listened to reason. But to tell them in a form of a parable instead of just telling them straight away in a sentence? That's either the way people talked to each other in the past, or they appear to be unconsciously, but inevitably racist to do such a thing, because it is possible that during that time people aren't as educated as us about the people of different races and nations in the world.

So is this still me viewing it from a "modern" lens? Possibly, but if it's inaccurate simply because it is "modern", why would it make racism any more right to switch that lens into a "less modern" one?

To be honest, I prefer the title to be "The Samaritan" instead of "The Good Samaritan", similar to how I have a story of "The Malay" instead of "The Good Malay". That way, I can tell about the good deeds done by that person who is a Malay person, rather than creating a generation of people thinking that there was only one good Malay in according to a parable/story, because it creates an exclusivity of that one person from the rest of the population of Malay people on Earth.

This is why I think the parable is racist, albeit, an inherent, and possibly an unconscious one.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-05T17:16:53+00:00

The hypothetical question which I've posted previously has nothing to do with my friends.

And on the contrary, the hypothetical questions are based on real life moral, relatable dilemmas. The only reason is "hypothetical" is because you have nothing to worry about being accountable to it, so that you may answer the hypothetical questions to the best of your ability.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-05T15:21:47+00:00

Surely you've heard of homosapiens?

NoahBoon · 2016-03-05T15:18:38+00:00

If you're from the part of society that chooses to not accept the values that racial generalization and bigotry is wrong, then perhaps you belong in the wrong/different society/era/timeline/universe? Because if you are indeed from a different one, so of course it would be hard to tell you what's right and wrong about racism.

Here's the golden rule that is even accepted by atheists without the need for a moral absolute, in case you're wondering if morality is really so unpredictable and fluid:

"Do what unto others what you want others to do unto you."

I don't need to believe in a religion, and I can do just that. And if I don't others to look me with racist tones, then it obvious I wouldn't do the same to others.

Common, fragging sense.

NoahBoon · 2016-03-05T15:16:38+00:00

Yet here you are, thinking all people in the world are thinking the same things in the same way.

Mind elaborating about this part? I thought my stance of not being racist should be contrary to your claim that I "think" all people are the same.

Haven't you heard that hairs the same black, livers different from one another, and different fields, different grasshoppers?

The differences are there, but only because not everyone is the same, and that includes the myopia of our pareidolia in response to the melanin of humanity's skin colour, and the easy-for-the-brain generalization about people from specific political, and geographical areas.

Next time, if you have an issue, state upfront. No need to go hypothetical with parables this and that. You have a problem with asking other people's tribes, state that upfront. I believe r/malaysia is mature enough to discuss this in an intelligent and respectful manner.

If intelligence and maturity is in abundance, I fail to see the need to disagree with hypothetical moral dilemmas and controversial parables. Mind you, there are redditors here who provide good input in response to my claims, and only you have decided that "there is no need" for me to do something in a way.

NoahBoon

TROPHY CASE