What is the basis for our ethics? If we reject religion and its pronouncements, what’s left?
Nietszche did not mean a literal death but the death of a unifying idea. Muslims have this through their belief in the Q’uran. If we are to keep western culture alive as a functioning idea in the mind of man, we need some ethics that most can agree on, to replace the fading Christian conception.
Thoughts?
What, you’ve never met an ethical atheist?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What is the basis for our ethics? If we reject religion and its pronouncements, what’s left?
Nietszche did not mean a literal death but the death of a unifying idea. Muslims have this through their belief in the Q’uran. If we are to keep western culture alive as a functioning idea in the mind of man, we need some ethics that most can agree on, to replace the fading Christian conception.
Thoughts?
[/quote]
I like Rawls’ theory of Justice (as Fairness?), though I’m certainly no expert. The idea that laws should be constructed so that inequalities benefit the less fortunate and should be set up so that you wouldn’t mind being born into any position is quite appealing.
-Dan
The basis is compassion, and it is a capacity. Some have the capacity to be more ‘ethical’ than others.
[quote]Ramo wrote:
The basis is compassion, and it is a capacity. Some have the capacity to be more ‘ethical’ than others. [/quote]
A la Rousseau?
Personal honor. If you say you will do something you do it. If you say you won’t do something you don’t do it. If you have to lie about it, it’s wrong.
Simple. Not easy. But simple.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What is the basis for our ethics? If we reject religion and its pronouncements, what’s left?
Nietszche did not mean a literal death but the death of a unifying idea. Muslims have this through their belief in the Q’uran. If we are to keep western culture alive as a functioning idea in the mind of man, we need some ethics that most can agree on, to replace the fading Christian conception.
Thoughts?
[/quote]
It seems to me you’ve started this thread with the intent to further an argument towards including Christian concepts within our [Western] ethics/legal system. However, ethics and legal issues do not need to be defined by religion, and I would further argue that democracies are hindered in many cases by religion. By hindered I mean that in a democratic institution such as the United States is supposed to opperate, the opinions of the majority are not reflected by policy emplaced by those with strong religious beliefs and political control.
Rather our fundamental right to freedom of religion is infringed upon whenever laws reflecting religious values are placed upon people who do not share in the belief of that faith.
Don’t believe in abortion? Fine, but don’t tell the lady down the street not to get one and then bomb the clinic in the name of God. I’m using an extreme example there and not intending to pidgeon-hole Christians as that example only applies to a minority, just using it to illustrate what I’m trying to say.
When did you start taking pages out of the Muslim world anyway?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What is the basis for our ethics? If we reject religion and its pronouncements, what’s left?[/quote]
Communities.
Men have always been social creatures. We do better in groups than we do alone. In earlier civilizations, being part of a group or tribe was vital. Getting kicked out meant you’d probably be dead very soon.
Ethical or ‘moral’ behavior is what a community deems acceptable behavior from its members. ‘Ethical’ behavior was whatever kept you in the group and ‘unethical’ or ‘immoral’ behavior was what got you kicked out. Nowadays, getting kicked out generally translates to a prison term, or, for more primitive societies, the death penalty.
Religions are similar constructs. You can think of them as ‘extended tribes’ if you want. Their problem, generally, is that the ‘rules’ become dogmatic and cannot change to accommodate a society’s progress. They tend to reflect the reality of the period when they ‘cemented’ their rules. As societies progress, the more rigid religions tend to slowly fall out of favor and lose adherents, or have adherents who ignore certain precepts (for example, Catholics and contraceptive methods in Western countries.)
What’s ethical or moral for one society might change as progress in various domain is made. For example, if you cannot cure a highly infectious and deadly disease, the ‘right’ thing to do is to quarantine or exile whoever is suffering from it; but once you find a way to treat the disease, the ‘moral’ choice is to do so, not to shun the ill person.
A recent quote from David Byrne:
Your question can be answered by looking at the core values of various religious systems, and determining whether or not those values can exist in the absence of such systems.
For example, love is the central tenet of christianity. Can non-christians show similar or greater love to one another? Obviously. So the value is independent of the religious trappings that go along with it.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What is the basis for our ethics? If we reject religion and its pronouncements, what’s left?
Communities.
Men have always been social creatures. We do better in groups than we do alone. In earlier civilizations, being part of a group or tribe was vital. Getting kicked out meant you’d probably be dead very soon.
Ethical or ‘moral’ behavior is what a community deems acceptable behavior from its members. ‘Ethical’ behavior was whatever kept you in the group and ‘unethical’ or ‘immoral’ behavior was what got you kicked out. Nowadays, getting kicked out generally translates to a prison term, or, for more primitive societies, the death penalty.
Religions are similar constructs. You can think of them as ‘extended tribes’ if you want. Their problem, generally, is that the ‘rules’ become dogmatic and cannot change to accommodate a society’s progress. They tend to reflect the reality of the period when they ‘cemented’ their rules. As societies progress, the more rigid religions tend to slowly fall out of favor and lose adherents, or have adherents who ignore certain precepts (for example, Catholics and contraceptive methods in Western countries.)
What’s ethical or moral for one society might change as progress in various domain is made. For example, if you cannot cure a highly infectious and deadly disease, the ‘right’ thing to do is to quarantine or exile whoever is suffering from it; but once you find a way to treat the disease, the ‘moral’ choice is to do so, not to shun the ill person.
[/quote]
This is an excellent answer, because its one that most people can grasp. One of our troubles is that most people think ethics is some mystical, magical thing they can’t understand; they therefore give up ALL ethics.
The difficulty I have with religion with regard to an ethics is that religion gives, to me, an unsatisfactory response to ‘why’ something is ethical. As Nietzsche points out, the answer “Because God says so!” simply becomes less and less acceptable as societies develop (hence the ‘God is dead.’ bit). Having a reason that’s not based upon mystical pronouncements is something I think most people would accept.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What is the basis for our ethics? If we reject religion and its pronouncements, what’s left?
Communities.
Men have always been social creatures. We do better in groups than we do alone. In earlier civilizations, being part of a group or tribe was vital. Getting kicked out meant you’d probably be dead very soon.
Ethical or ‘moral’ behavior is what a community deems acceptable behavior from its members. ‘Ethical’ behavior was whatever kept you in the group and ‘unethical’ or ‘immoral’ behavior was what got you kicked out. Nowadays, getting kicked out generally translates to a prison term, or, for more primitive societies, the death penalty.
Religions are similar constructs. You can think of them as ‘extended tribes’ if you want. Their problem, generally, is that the ‘rules’ become dogmatic and cannot change to accommodate a society’s progress. They tend to reflect the reality of the period when they ‘cemented’ their rules. As societies progress, the more rigid religions tend to slowly fall out of favor and lose adherents, or have adherents who ignore certain precepts (for example, Catholics and contraceptive methods in Western countries.)
What’s ethical or moral for one society might change as progress in various domain is made. For example, if you cannot cure a highly infectious and deadly disease, the ‘right’ thing to do is to quarantine or exile whoever is suffering from it; but once you find a way to treat the disease, the ‘moral’ choice is to do so, not to shun the ill person.
[/quote]
I like this. A lot. Mind if I quote you in philosophy class tomorrow? XD
“If God did not exist, it would be neccessary to invent him.”
“Is God a mistake of man, or man a mistake of God?”
Good thread idea.
Actually, “ethics” as such has always been an imagined edifice, and Nietzsche’s contribution to philosophy is the simple point that ethics are relative, whether we would like it to be so or not.
Nietzsche, in fact, probably did much to establish the argument that modern society is fragmented in nature – ethics, laws, manners, so on.
There’s no “loss” in this, except of course the loss of the obviously false assumption that a belief system has a “core” or center. Post-structuralist theory indicates that all things – especially language – only have meaning in relation to other things.
What this means for ethics is that we act, and always did act, without the crutch of religion.
The primary tenet of ethics, for me, is the fact that most people are prone to avoid killing and violence. Those that are not need to be blocked from doing so.
I like Freud’s thinking on this.
In sum, God and religion have very little to do with the decisive moments when “ethics” happens.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This is an excellent answer, because its one that most people can grasp. One of our troubles is that most people think ethics is some mystical, magical thing they can’t understand; they therefore give up ALL ethics.[/quote]
I’m not sure if it’s really people giving up because they don’t understand it, or simply the fact that humans easily succumb to the temptation of doing something ‘wrong’ if they think they can get away with it.
That’s one point where religion and it’s ‘God sees you always’ might have an advantage. If you really believe you’re being watched; that God knows what you’re doing, it might provide additional incentive for trying to stay ethical.
It doesn’t work for everyone. Even with CCTV cameras, where there can be no doubt you’re being watched, you still get people engaging in unethical behavior.
I think that becomes especially true when people notice that some modern beliefs about rights and justice - such as women being equal to men in rights, or that slavery is wrong - are somehow unaccounted for in books supposedly inspired by a benevolent, omniscient being. Taking a step back, you quickly come to the conclusion that it’s the laws and cultures of the times that shaped the books and not the other way around.
[quote]schencka wrote:
The primary tenet of ethics, for me, is the fact that most people are prone to avoid killing and violence. Those that are not need to be blocked from doing so.[/quote]
That’s a good base. You avoid killing others because you understand that they’d also prefer you to avoid killing them.
You’ll protect your family with your life; but you understand that it’s probably in your interest to also help your neighbor protect his family. In return he’ll help you protect yours. Expand that ‘protective circle’ to a bunch of families and you have a tribe, a village, a small community. If someone harms the community, he’ll be scolded, beaten, exiled or killed.
Different communities will have different rules as to what constitutes ethical behavior. A desert tribe will probably have rules against wasting water and rules for sharing it. A community living near the join of two rivers would probably laugh at those rules.
Religion was/is probably a way to extend a tribe. While a bunch of small communities might inhabit some region, they might not feel the need to help one another if there is no immediate threat to themselves. With religion, you then feel compelled to go help your ‘brother’ from far away, because he has the same basic (ie, religious) values you do.
Having the rules emanate from God was surely a great way to end the squabbling among the various tribes; no one would dare claim to be ‘above’ God and be able to change his rules.
The downside is that you’ll get into wars with people over religion when you’d probably get along just fine if it wasn’t in the picture.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What is the basis for our ethics? If we reject religion and its pronouncements, what’s left?
Nietszche did not mean a literal death but the death of a unifying idea. Muslims have this through their belief in the Q’uran. If we are to keep western culture alive as a functioning idea in the mind of man, we need some ethics that most can agree on, to replace the fading Christian conception.
Thoughts?
[/quote]
We are allready developing a new unifying religion with different forms of socialism…
We had National-Socialism, Communist- Socialism and now we are experimenting with Democratic-Socialism…
Socialism is gnostic, it is manich?ic, eschatological and it has Christian roots…
Bow to the needs of society, which is larger and more important than thou and from which floweth all that is good and wholesome…
Repent ye egoistical sinners and give Leviathan what is rightfully his…
[quote]slimjim wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What is the basis for our ethics? If we reject religion and its pronouncements, what’s left?
Nietszche did not mean a literal death but the death of a unifying idea. Muslims have this through their belief in the Q’uran. If we are to keep western culture alive as a functioning idea in the mind of man, we need some ethics that most can agree on, to replace the fading Christian conception.
Thoughts?
It seems to me you’ve started this thread with the intent to further an argument towards including Christian concepts within our [Western] ethics/legal system. However, ethics and legal issues do not need to be defined by religion, and I would further argue that democracies are hindered in many cases by religion. [/quote]
That’s the point of the thread. Nietzsche predicted, in the 1880’s, a period of great wars, since western man has lost his ‘center’, the focal point of his life which was Christianity.
The Nazis tried to replace Christianity with worship of the Aryan Race. The Russians tried to replace Christianity with worship of the Proletariat. Neither of these conceptions worked.
My belief would center around the worship of the self AS A RATIONAL BEING (which excludes initiating violence against others, theft, fraud, and so forth).
Thoughts?
I’m ill, so I’m not going to spend too much time trying to explain myself.
The problem with Pookie’s answer is that it boils down to a Thrasymachan argument that justice is the interest of the stronger. The group or community is simply used instead of a powerful individual. Further, this argument leads to the idea that justice and ethics are all matters of convention, or relative, rather than absolute or based on the nature of man.
Let me qualify: any people will have its own needs as a people, will have its own particular circumstances which require laws and ethics particular to them. But this is not to say that all morality is relative, but that there are certain minor things in which we may differ.
If Pookie’s argument holds, then the interest of the group may conflict with my own interests so completely that it is no longer to my benefit to adhere to the rules; that is, I will dissolve the social contract.
Because pookie’s argument really is about a social contract - one without natural restriction, and one that has no well-defined point of termination or abuse. Rousseau is too complicated to go into right now; but suffice it to say that he understood that for this kind of arrangement to be legitimate, there were a number of conditions that would need to be satisfied first.
And further, the social contract was not a method of determining ethics or morality, but rather of determining law and living together without being shackled and oppressed.
Certainly, morality implies that there is some community; that is, ethical violations occur interpersonally rather than inside oneself, or when they do occur inside oneself, it is with relation to an external object.
But arguing that ethics is dependent upon consent and convention immediately introduces the problem that those born into such a society are incapable of consent, and yet are held to those standards. Certain situations preclude any reasonable notion of consent. So we are left with convention.
There is an alternative, however, which is that there is a best way for human beings to live, and that this way is based on what human beings are and how they are made. We needn’t make a religious appeal, but rather only accept that human beings are not so radically different from one another that we cannot be led to common happiness by shared moral principles.
But now I’m coughing up stuff, so that’s the end of my contribution.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
My belief would center around the worship of the self AS A RATIONAL BEING (which excludes initiating violence against others, theft, fraud, and so forth).
Thoughts?[/quote]
Isn’t ‘worship’ an odd word to describe it? Worship implies unquestioning love and uncritical devotion to something. If you claim to be a rational being, you should remain critical and questioning of everything, because those are very basic tools of reason.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
My belief would center around the worship of the self AS A RATIONAL BEING (which excludes initiating violence against others, theft, fraud, and so forth).
Thoughts?
Isn’t ‘worship’ an odd word to describe it? Worship implies unquestioning love and uncritical devotion to something. If you claim to be a rational being, you should remain critical and questioning of everything, because those are very basic tools of reason.
[/quote]
If I understand Headhunter correctly, his point is that human beings always substitute one sort of worship for another, so we should pick the best idol available. For him, this would be the rational self.