----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:41 PM Subject: Re: Religion based ethics
> Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with > > his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics. It was one of his > > greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for > > ethics. It was clear, by the nature of his statements, that he accepted > > that ethics have no firm foundation in his worldview. > > > > Indeed, he volunteered this when he was asked about regrets. There's an > > atheist with his eyes open. I respectfully differ with his position, but > > he certainly has strong integrity. > > > > Let me ask you this, Dan. If morals/ethics are purely a matter of > faith, and the "rules" as set forth by a god, why aren't they constant? The fundamental rules that I follow have been constant for at least 2000 years. The application has changed. Peter Gomes writes an excellent analysis of this in "The Good Book" He argues for applying Biblical principals, not practices. Practice and interpretation of basic principals are also included in scripture, but one does not have to conform to practice. One of the great things about his argument is that he starts out by showing how the temperance movement (a relatively conservative movement by the 20th century) is consistent with an interpretation of scriptural principals, even though Jesus drank wine. > Why are slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, child labor, the > subjugation of women etc. etc. ethical in the past, but unethical now? The scriptural answer was "because your fathers were hard of heart." Another way to look at it is seeing us as growing in understanding. Further, there are changes in the world that changes the morality of a given action. For example, child labor was inherently moral when the inherent results of pulling children from the labor pool was to reduce > We are discussing gay marriage in another thread. Is it unethical in > your opinion? No, it is not. I think that the Christians who are opposed to this are not basing their arguments on biblical principals. I think that they are guided by an earlier understanding of natural law. I think that this understanding is flawed and should be perceived as opposed to fundamental biblical principals. > I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? Not really. Remember there is no purpose to evolution, it just is. The survival of the fittest is not the survival of the best. In particular, fittest may be a function of the sequence of environments; so the nature of the fittest can be somewhat random. Yes, of course, there are some things, such as eyes, which are almost inevitable along many branches of evolution. But, there are many things that survived for reasons that can best be described as luck. I don't the nature of morality is a function of chance. In addition, by this definition, might is right. For example, if the Soviet Union had won the Cold War, then an uncontrolled press would have been immoral. If you think that morality is just the rules of the prevailing culture, then this is probably a self consistent viewpoint. But, then you would have to say that all that prevents the viewpoint that it is immoral for women to live as men's equals from being true is the military and economic power of the US. I don't think this is your viewpoint, but I'm not quite sure what it is. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
