Ethics, Morality and Religion
Can you have ethics without religion? The starting point of most ethical thought can be based upon either what people value or what is natural. What we value is based upon what we are programmed by society to value plus whatever natural instincts tell us to value. In addition, each of us has individual values and uses different heirarchies of values. So, any attempt to create a system of ethics is going to run afoul of some individuals and some societies who will have different values.
Here is an ethical puzzle: Siamese twins share one heart. Both will die unless a surgeon performs an operation. That operation will disconnect one twin from the heart and allow the other to live a long and healthy life. Twin A says "I am not afraid to die. I willingly would do so for my sibling." Twin B says "Kill my twin. I want to live." You are the surgeon. What do you do?
The concept of social science as being devoid of religion is an absurdity, as many, if not most, members of societies have religious thoughts going on inside their heads. It can be argued that animals are not contaminated by religion, although truly without proof (DocBrain's daughter's dog worships her and her husband). Nonetheless, if one assumes no religion among animals, then one could use animal behavior as "natural social science". This would suggest territorial imperitives, racism, survival by tooth and fang (knife, gun and H bomb), might making right, and no need for compassion for the less abled as being part of the course of nature.
Virtue, defined by observation of the physical world as it is, is a limited concept, open to different interpretations. There is little in the natural world to suggest that democracy, compassion for those different from ourselves, freedom, individualism, or use of our intelligence to modify nature are natural.
Ethical naturalism is a hoax. Ethics as a way of codifying what is generally accepted by most people, religions and societies as being good, right, and virtuous, as a sort of meta-religion, is what most of us think about as "ethics".
Ethics, therefore, does not tell us how many virgins will meet us in heaven, whether eating pork is bad or whether Christ died for our sins, but does tell us that we should treat others as they would like to be treated, that malice is not a good thing and that learning is important. These ethical determinations cannot conclusively be reached by observation of the natural world.
DocBrain believes that the underpinning of law is religion, either disguised or openly stated. DocBrain believes that we get into trouble when we use only one religion to determine lawfulness, but do not get into trouble if we use multiple religions to reach a common good. This is why "Blue laws" are bad, but also why separation of God from government is wrong. DocBrain believes that there are good atheists, but only because they slavishly follow traditional behavioral traits. People kill in the name of religion, but rarely in following the word of God. People also kill in the name of evolution. Like the blind men and the elephant, we must look for God in the combined wisdom of all religions. As in the previous post, God probably is more of a creator of than a provident entity, but does act through the continued presence of God's laws always being in effect.
DocBrain believes that it is extremely dangerous to separate God from good, or God from government. DocBrain does not believe that this was the intent of the Constitution of the USA or of the founding fathers. DocBrain believes that doing so clouds the mind, produces moral relativism, and moves us away from our ultimate destiny...understanding of the universe and ability to relieve suffering, ignorance and conflict in the world.
Here is an ethical puzzle: Siamese twins share one heart. Both will die unless a surgeon performs an operation. That operation will disconnect one twin from the heart and allow the other to live a long and healthy life. Twin A says "I am not afraid to die. I willingly would do so for my sibling." Twin B says "Kill my twin. I want to live." You are the surgeon. What do you do?
The concept of social science as being devoid of religion is an absurdity, as many, if not most, members of societies have religious thoughts going on inside their heads. It can be argued that animals are not contaminated by religion, although truly without proof (DocBrain's daughter's dog worships her and her husband). Nonetheless, if one assumes no religion among animals, then one could use animal behavior as "natural social science". This would suggest territorial imperitives, racism, survival by tooth and fang (knife, gun and H bomb), might making right, and no need for compassion for the less abled as being part of the course of nature.
Virtue, defined by observation of the physical world as it is, is a limited concept, open to different interpretations. There is little in the natural world to suggest that democracy, compassion for those different from ourselves, freedom, individualism, or use of our intelligence to modify nature are natural.
Ethical naturalism is a hoax. Ethics as a way of codifying what is generally accepted by most people, religions and societies as being good, right, and virtuous, as a sort of meta-religion, is what most of us think about as "ethics".
Ethics, therefore, does not tell us how many virgins will meet us in heaven, whether eating pork is bad or whether Christ died for our sins, but does tell us that we should treat others as they would like to be treated, that malice is not a good thing and that learning is important. These ethical determinations cannot conclusively be reached by observation of the natural world.
DocBrain believes that the underpinning of law is religion, either disguised or openly stated. DocBrain believes that we get into trouble when we use only one religion to determine lawfulness, but do not get into trouble if we use multiple religions to reach a common good. This is why "Blue laws" are bad, but also why separation of God from government is wrong. DocBrain believes that there are good atheists, but only because they slavishly follow traditional behavioral traits. People kill in the name of religion, but rarely in following the word of God. People also kill in the name of evolution. Like the blind men and the elephant, we must look for God in the combined wisdom of all religions. As in the previous post, God probably is more of a creator of than a provident entity, but does act through the continued presence of God's laws always being in effect.
DocBrain believes that it is extremely dangerous to separate God from good, or God from government. DocBrain does not believe that this was the intent of the Constitution of the USA or of the founding fathers. DocBrain believes that doing so clouds the mind, produces moral relativism, and moves us away from our ultimate destiny...understanding of the universe and ability to relieve suffering, ignorance and conflict in the world.
posted by DocBrain at
4:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home