Thread: The Art of Ethics *highbrow alert*

Originally Posted by xman

And I know people who are only so wise as to be foolish enough to believe that, thus deciding cognitively to live their lives with a code that goes against their nature. Miserable creatures.

X

You believe that the foolish can be wise enough to be foolish (what the....) and yet you retain the capacity to understand what is the nature of men? I am startled!

By the way, I wandered in here by way of a different thread - I hope I haven't disturbed anyone

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Hi bevansmw! Welcome to the discussion. Don't worry about the plethora of scriptural quotes, people who use their religious faith to find the source of right and wrong often rely on specific scripture, and it's good to have a reference to that scripture for the rest of us who might have questions.

Please don't take offense with what I'm about to say, but I'm going to outline some...difficulties I have with this sort of ethical belief system.

First, I notice that you use Judgment Day and the subsequent consignment to Heaven or Hell to motivate people to do what is right and refrain from what is wrong.(#1) But it seems to me that this sort of motivation through fear of punishment or desire for reward isn't the right sort of motivation if one is to be called moral. If the reason they feed and clothe the poor or heal the sick or comfort the afflicted is because they are anticipating some greater reward in the future or because they fear the pain and anguish of punishment, then they're not doing the right thing because it's the right thing. They're still acting selfishly, it's just that they're focusing on longer term consequences. When your kids only clean their room so they don't get a whupping or because you promised to take them for ice cream if they do, we don't feel they are as praiseworthy as we would if they did it because it needed to be done, without have to be externally compelled.

Second, it seems that you're using the King James version of the Bible, or a translation that's very close. The problem with the Bible is that it's pretty clear from its history that what was included and what was left out was made for very human, political reasons. Even if I grant that the Bible was divinely inspired, why would we leave out the Gospel according to St. Peter or St. Thomas, or any of the other gnostic gospels? These decisions were made during the Council of Nicea, because the Emperor Constantine had just converted to Christianity and wanted a reading list to better understand his new religion. The church leaders of the day wanted to make very sure that the Emperor didn't read texts of which they disapproved, and I very much doubt that God was sitting in on these meetings. (#2) After all, there were 12 Disciples, why are there only 4 Gospels? You claim that there are scientific truths in the Bible, but the way you justify this is rather like the way people claim that Nostradamus predicted the future. You have some fairly obscure text that's pretty difficult to interpret. Independently, you discover some scientific fact. And then you go back to interpret the original text in line with that fact. For the longest time, aspects of the Bible were used to justify the belief that the world was flat, as the Bible clearly states that when Jesus returns, (#3)He will come from the East, but if the world were round, he couldn't come from the East for everybody. Later Christian scholars, who knew from the Greeks that the world was round, used this element of scripture to hold that nobody lived on the other side of the world. The ability to interpret these factual claims of the Bible in almost any way you wish is not a virtue of that text, but a real problem for those of us who are still stuck in the stage of inquiry.

Getting down to the knitty gritty, there is a fundamental question about the relationship of morality to God, and I don't think you're going to like the implications of this question. (#4) You claim that God commands what is right, but does he command it because it is right, or is it right because He commands it? If it is the former, then the difference between right and wrong is arbitrary, and depends entirely on God's whims. If we were to ask him why we shouldn't covet our neighbor's wife, ultimately, the only answer he could give would be "Because I said so." If he commanded us to kill our first born children by hanging them by their toes and peeling off their skin in one inch strips, then that would make it right to do so, and that should strike you as pretty wrong. On the other hand, If God commands what is right because it is right, then the difference between right and wrong transcends God's edict. God would then have reasons for his commands, and if we are to be moral ourselves, then we need to discover these reasons and not remain ignorant and simply follow orders.

(#5)Finally, why should I be a Christian, and not a Muslim or a Hindu or even a Wiccan? Each of these other faiths have their own moral codes, and their beliefs about God(s) are radically incompatible with one another. In fact, if I am to be entirely honest about the situation, I have to admit that I can't know whether God even exists, because in this life I can never have any sure experience of him. I can hope he exists, and I can behave as if he does exist, even to the extent that I feel really very certain, but I can never know it, because this belief can never be independently justified. There's no experiment I can do to show God's existence, and no successful logical proof of it. When I have what I take to be a religious experience, I have no way of knowing if it's the same sort of experience you have when you claim to have a religious experience, and I have no way of knowing if we are connected to the same thing as the cause of this experience.

This is why I claim that these sorts of ideas aren't particularly good for understanding the nature of morality, because if you're right, then to understand morality, I would have to understand God, and I don't think anybody would admit that they can do that. Don't fret, because where knowledge ends, faith begins. I can still have faith in God, even if I can't know anything about him, but I can know about morality, which means that God and morality are not connected in any simply or easy way. It is far better for us that we can have access to knowledge of right and wrong without needing such access to God, for opinions vary too much about Him, and we require more universality and certainty when we try to figure out what to do. This is why there's a whole discipline devoted to figuring out what's right and wrong, without making reference to any deity.

#1- There always MUST exist some REASON for people to act morally. If there is no impetous to do so, people will not do so of their own accord. Debating ethics is one thing. Thinking about doing the right things is a far cry from living in that manner. Left to our own devices we would not give a wet slap about what was "right" or wrong. We'd all look out for #1.

#2- Not all are called to be writers. The council of Nicea was conviened to correct false teachings that had sprung up in regards to Christianity (Arianism), not to compile a summer reading list for the Emperor

#3- Ever see the sunrise? What direction does it come from? Is it the same for everybody? Perhaps the same dynamic would come into play.

#4- A pretty bogus argument, since God does not ask us to peel the skin off of our children, that is pure philosophical posturing. And as far as things being right just because God "says so". I put alot more faith in what God decides as right and wrong than anything any person, group of people/scholars/ethicists could ever come up with.

Some people/tribes participate in cannabalism. To them it is morally right to do so. Does that then make it right? As an ethicist can you come up with universally agreed upon things that are "right" for everybody? Have you ever had any cannibals present at these discussions? How about people who commit incest? Are thay invited to the discussions for an equal vote on what is "right" according to human decision?

#5- This is the $60,000 question, as they cannot all be correct. One of them is The Truth. You cannot say that they are all false just because not all of them are true.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

You believe that the foolish can be wise enough to be foolish (what the....) and yet you retain the capacity to understand what is the nature of men? I am startled!

I'm not surprised.