In theory, yes
Comment on My Religion
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 days agoTaboos aren’t just intended to uphold individual moral integrity. They exist to prohibit social harm
sukhmel@programming.dev 4 days ago
Lemminary@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Like what? I can understand something like cannibalism and incest resulting in some diseases, which is fair, although they’re not exclusive to religion. But most typical religious taboos are harmless and arguably more harmful to society for no good reason.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I can understand something like cannibalism and incest resulting in some diseases, which is fair, although they’re not exclusive to religion.
They don’t need to be. Religious and secular moral codes regularly inform one another.
Lemminary@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Do you have examples? If that were true, religious taboos would be more rational.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Do you have examples?
Medicalized secular acceptance/resistance toward vaccination has been picked up by religious organizations and turned into a sectarian belief.
The NIH even had a study illustrating how outreach to religious leadership heavily impacted how communities adopted vaccination.
I mean, a lot of religions don’t particularly denounce cannibalism
Virtually every modern world religion has a stated position on murder generally speaking, human sacrifice specifically, and dietary taboos around cannibalism.
MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Define “social harm”.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Harm inflicted across the general public, either to particular individual victims or as a negative externality experienced universally.
treesapx@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Your statement dodges the point in many ways.