Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Hi Alfred,

Although you didn't ask any questions here (except for a rhetorical one)
this reminded me of a passage I read in one of Douglas Hoffstadters' books, 
possibly _The Mind's I_.

The subject was ethnics, and he put forth the following "rule": 

	consider what would happen if, literally "everybody did it".

It's similar to the classical line (usually from teevee moms to their teevee 
offspring) "if everybody jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it too?"

What would the consequences be for humanity?  Everyone would die.  This would
not be to the benefit of humanity, therefore it is unethical.  I guess in
terms of what you said, this is in effect taking the whole of humanity as the
higher authority. 

Still,

What would happen if *everybody* just dumped their trash where ever they 
pleased?  

What would happen if *everybody* ran red lights?

What would happen if *everybody* loved others as God loves them?

By taking such rhetorical questions and thinking through the consequences of 
applying them literally, one might be able to decide whether to take such an 
action.  

Note that I do not completely agree with his reasoning, it's just that you 
reminded me of that passage, and I think it is an interesting approach, and 
may even be beneficial, especially when applied within a larger context.  I,
too, would probably have problems in such a class where religion was divorced
from the subject matter. 

By the way, what would happen if *everybody* kept silent about their 
misgivings about how a subject was presented in order to get a good grade? .-)

Peace,

Jim

The subject was ethnics, and he put forth the following "rule": 

ETHICS, not ethnics, ETHICS!  

Sorry for the type.

Peace,

Jim

It must be Friday, I can't even spell "typo".

Peace, and see a bunch of you this Monday!

Jim

Re: .0 Alfred

This is similar to the idea I was trying to explore in note 274 "Absolutism
vs. Relativism", which quoted an article on the philosophy of Czech dissidents.
The problem is: in the absence of a metaphysical system such as religion, how
can you speak of one action as being more or less "ethical" or "moral" than
another?  How can we prove, for example, that the dissidents were acting
morally and the Communist government was acting immorally?

>    It has always seemed to be that an ethical system that accepted men
>    as the highest form of life and the root of ethics was by definition
>    flawed enough to be unusable except in limited context. My feeling 
>    being that if man is the highest and no man is higher in authority
>    than any other that anything a person decided fit their world view
>    and that they could justify *in there own mind* was ethical.

It would be ethical *to them*, but not necessarily to anyone else.  If I decide
that it's ethical for me to walk into a supermarket and eat whatever I want
without paying for it, pretty soon someone's going to call the cops.  In
another culture, though, my action might be considered completely ethical, and
it might be considered unethical for the supermarket owner *not* to let me eat
whatever I wanted.  What's important is not some imagined universal moral
system, but a set of shared moral beliefs that are held by a large number of
people.

Of course physical reality also comes into play; a society where anyone could
take other people's property at will might not last very long.

> The
>    philosopher would, and did in my class, argue this concept made a
>    rational discussion of and acceptance of universal ethics impossible.
>    This is no doubt correct but to use that as an argument that this
>    somehow proves the existence of universal ethical concepts seems,
>    to me, to be dishonest circular reasoning.

It certainly does sound illogical.  Was the professor arguing that a universal
ethical system must exist because otherwise an individual could do anything
they liked and say it was ethical??

>    For me there must be a source of ethical principles higher than man
>    for them to exist at all.

I agree that there has to be some metaphysical basis for a *universal* set of
ethical principles.  I don't think that this universal set of principles
exists, and instead all we have are various "relative" ethical principles,
which sometimes contradict each other, that are held by different groups of
individuals.

>Ethics and religion are inseparable.

*Universal* ethics and religion may be inseparable, but not all ethical
systems claim to be universal.

Re: .1  Jim

>What would happen if *everybody* just dumped their trash where ever they 
>pleased?  

This reminds me of a scene in Woody Allen's movie "Love and Death".  Diane
Keaton is trying to convince Woody to go to Paris and assassinate Napoleon.
Paraphrased:

	Woody:  You can't just go around killing people.  What if everyone
	acted that way?

	Diane:  If everyone in New York decided to go to [name of restaurant]
	for ice cream on the same day there would be a massive traffic jam,
	but they don't.

Joe Blow might argue that as long as the majority of law abiding citizens
don't dump their trash wherever they please, society won't be greatly hurt if
a few people like Joe do dump their trash.  Sure, things would be in bad
shape if everyone dumped their trash, but they don't.

Society's answer to people like Joe is to impose penalties to force them
to act "ethically".  O.K., Joe, maybe dumping trash by the side of the road
doesn't bother you, but paying a $500 fine *might* bother you enough that
you won't do it again.  It's like what Peter Meade of Boston's WBZ radio
says about drunk drivers.  "You don't think you have a drinking problem?
OK, you don't have a drinking problem - you have a jail problem."

				-- Bob

    I do have a problem with the view that ethics can be determined purely
    by reason if and when it relies on empiricism to solve ethical
    questions.  While I believe that reason and empiricism are very
    important, the best that they can hope to do for us is to clarify the
    facts from which we must then make the final ethical determination
    ourselves.  Empiricism does not provide us with the "best" decisions to
    make; it only gives us the facts necessary to help us make that
    decision.  Ultimately we must rely on our values to make that final
    decision.

    Where do those values come from, you might ask?  That's a good
    question, but my own view is that the concepts of right and wrong
    ultimately come from God. Those who do not believe in God would
    obviously disagree, but my real point is that empiricism alone doesn't
    give us any sort of "objective" basis for making the determination. 
    This is the problem that I have with positivism.  August Comte, a 19th
    Century sociologist, argued for making sociology a science, no
    different from the so-called "hard" sciences, in the sense that all
    decisions about society would be as objectively and empirically certain
    as biology, chemistry, or physics.  In this view, the political and
    ideological differences over sociological questions would disappear
    into purely scientific discourse.  This was the doctrine of positivism.

    Comte's mistake was in not realizing that, when dealing with human
    beings--their hopes, interests, conflicts, and goals--that you could do
    so without taking into consideration human values; and human values are
    not to be objectively determined through the mere study of nature. 
    This fallacy continues to be popular today, unfortunately, in various
    forms.  From what I hear of Ayn Rand's beliefs, which has a certain
    popular following in certain quarters, this belief persists in the
    doctrine of "Objectivism".  And yet, when you listen closely to those
    who endorse this belief in the power of empiricism to decide the proper
    course of action in human society, you realize that they hold on to
    certain implicit values that are in no way determined by purely
    empirical study, and on which the individuals have superimposed onto
    their allegedly "objective" analysis of reality.

    We can, for example, study the biological processes involved with AIDS;
    we can study the behavior of retroviruses, the etiology of the disease,
    the process of transmission.  All of this information will help us to
    clarify the facts needed to make a social decision about proper public
    policy on the subject.  But ideological and ethical decisions about how
    society is to deal with the problem--do we have mandatory testing, do
    we quarantine the afflicted, etc.--become ethical problems that no
    empirical study can tell us.  Biology tells gives us the facts about
    AIDS.  These facts imply a range of possible responses, but they can't
    supply us with any decision as to which of these many possibilities to
    choose.  They can't tell us *how* to deal with those facts once they
    are presented to us.  This ultimate decision hinges on our system of
    human values.

    In my view, positivism represents a flawed epistemology.  As Whitehead
    pointed out so elegantly, there is no observation free of
    interpretation, and the claim of pure objectivity that is presented by
    positivists (and, from what I gather, Ayn Rand's "objectivist"
    followers) represents, it seems to me, a holdover from a nineteenth
    century optimism about science that has not born fruit in this century. 
    More importantly, even when we limit the value of empiricism in its
    relationship to knowledge, I think that any attempt at basing a system
    of ethics on pure empiricism is doomed to failure.

    -- Mike

    Mike .6,
    
    I agree with your thoughts on the function and limits of empiricism.
    I recall reading Heisenberg's reflections on the limitations of
    science, particularly of physics.  One of the things he noted was that
    physics described in scientific terms certain "events" found in life,
    but that it did absolutely squat in offering anything of value to
    informing human beings of the "meaning" of life.  That's what each
    person is called to create through her/his particular value/belief 
    system.
    
    After basic physical needs have been met (food, water, shelter), 
    creating and living a meaning of life which is fulfilling and nurturing 
    to oneself, is the secret (and not-so-secret), deepest need of every 
    human being.  
    
    Karen
                                                   

    -1,
    
    I need to note that the last paragraph is imo.
    
    Karen

Note 285.0

>    The course I just finished on ethics required that religion not
>    be used. The theory being that ethics should be based on rational
>    logical reason rather than authority.

Interesting premise.  This is doubtlessly what Bob Messenger pointed out
in 270.36.

At some point, doesn't rational, logical reason become exalted to the
level of authority?  I guess it's an academic question.  And certainly, the
course was through an academic institution.

Perhaps I am fooling myself, but I think my ethics are based more on the
premise of universal love and reverence for life rather than on the tenants
of religious authority.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: 8
    
    In my opinion, too, Karen. And not only the deepest need but also
    the deepest joy.
    
    Eileen
    

    Eileen,
    
    re: the deepest "joy"
    
    	Yes!
    
    Karen