The Baha'i Studies Listserv Dear Stephen, I think you will do a much better job understanding the Baha'i Teachings if you don't try to stick them in other people's categories. They might well be relevant where we find evidence of influence, but otherwise it just confuses the issue.
warmest, Susan On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Stephen Gray <skg_z...@yahoo.com> wrote: > The Baha'i Studies Listserv > > Virtue ethics and consequentialism are two different and unrelated schools > of normative ethics. Virtue ethicists would promote being virtuous > regardless of consequences and deontologists with duty instead of virtue. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contractualism > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism > > > *Moral absolutism* is an ethical <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical>view > that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of > other circumstances such as their consequences or the intentions behind > them. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always > immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to > feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a > good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative > ethical theories <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics> such as > consequentialism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism>, which > holds that the morality <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality> (in the > wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act. > Moral absolutism is not the same as moral > universalism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism>(also called > *moral objectivism*). Universalism holds merely that what is right or > wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral > relativism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism>), > but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context > or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with > moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis > Pojman <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pojman> gives the following > definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and > universalism:[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism#cite_note-PojmanDefense-1> > “ > > - Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never > to be violated. > - Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any > given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter > that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance. > > ” > Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on > rights<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights>and > duty <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty>, such as the deontological > ethics<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics>of Immanuel > Kant <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant>, are often forms of > moral absolutism, as are many > religious<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion>moral codes. > > Whether a motive is virtuous or vicious, whether an act is dutiful or not > dutiful, whether an act is right or wrong has nothing to do with > consequence. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty > > Sen, your arguments are based on an absurd reductio. Lifeboat scenarios > and other extreme hypothetical situations are bad ways of testing ethical > theories. > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sen McGlinn <senmcgl...@gmail.com> > > *To:* Baha'i Studies <bahai-st@list.jccc.edu> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:45 PM > > *Subject:* Re: Virtue and Vice > > The Baha'i Studies Listserv > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Stephen Kent Gray <skg_z...@yahoo.com>wrote: > > .... What does it mean to be ... too courageous? .... too prudent? > > > Courage without wisdom & prudence would lead to bad outcomes, although > courage is a virtue. > > > ....too merciful? too compassionate? too equanimous? > > > Equanimity in the face of the abuse of the defenceless would be > comfortable, but not virtuous. Compassion and mercy that allow the abuse of > the helpless, or that fail to correct and train someone who is going astray > and could be corrected, do not lead to good outcomes, although compassion > and mercy in themselves are virtues. Without justice and wisdom, individual > virtues do not necessarily promote the good society, or happiness for those > around us. > > Sen > > > __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:arch...@mail-archive.com Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:leave-688220-27401.54f46e81b66496c9909bcdc2f7987...@list.jccc.edu Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to ly...@list.jccc.edu Or subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News (on-campus only) - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
