Posted on 08/30/2002 10:31:06 AM PDT by thinktwice
When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."
And that contradiction is evidence of serious flaws in religious moralities.
For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only ethics worthy of carrying the name "moral."
Aristotle produced a simplistic rational ethics based on virtues visible in respected people, and vices visible in non-respected humans. And teaching Aristotle's non-denominational ethics in public schools would be a great idea, but ... We'd be turning out individuals with the same moral upbringing of Alexander the Great, and that wouldn't do in a socialistic world.
Even better is Ayn Rand's ethics. Her's is an ethics metaphysically based in reality and epistemologically based in reason; making it a clear and concise rational ethics that makes sense. Ayn Rand's ethics is clearly also what America's founding fathers had in mind when writing the founding documents that recognized and moved to preserve individual freedom -- the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
I didn't. I just pointed out that Singer thinks he's developing a morality from reason - as you (I believe) believe is possible.
Just like last time we discussed issues, tpaine, you started wasting my time. See ya!
You're the one that wrote that sentence. And you're the one that added qualifiers after being nailed for writng it.
Are you just careless, or are you what you truly appear to be?
You're the one that wrote that sentence. And you're the one that added qualifiers after being nailed for writng it. Are you just careless, or are you what you truly appear to be?
I did write that sentence, and that is what morals are. It's not a careless statement. I did point out that a moral relativist is not one who doesn't realize that people have different moralities, but one who thinks all moralities are equivalent. That doesn't affect or qualify the initial statement in any way.
I called that moral relativism.
And then YB responds ... I did write that sentence, and that is what morals are. It's not a careless statement. I did point out that a moral relativist is not one who doesn't realize that people have different moralities, but one who thinks all moralities are equivalent.
Meanwhile, Webster's defines relativism as ...
relativism -- philos. any theory of ethics or knowledge which maintains that the basis of judgement is relative, differing, according to events, persons, etc.
... Jb's use of the term "equivalent" is crucial in seeing JB's error.
JB doesn't know what a moral relativist is, but he is one.
Does it not strike you as totally absurd that you are calling a devout Christian a moral relativist? You can do that, of course, but it IS truly humorous!
At first glance, I was pretty sure that your statement (above) was a lie.
At second glance, I can see that it was probably a malicious twisting of Ayn Rand words with the intent of getting reactions such as my reaction.
The truth is that moral issues to those religious deal with sin and forgiveness and getting to heaven; but moral issues to Objectivists involve every volitional action taken by an individual, with every such action having a right and wrong associated with it.
For Objectivists; from choosing to eat with either a fork or spoon, to choosing a mate, to choosing a philosophy; every volitional human action is a moral decision with a moral reward or punishment evolving as a result of the decision.
I'd still like to know your source.
Moussaoui's court pleadings, which recently included demands to euthanize a defense lawyer, place a curse on the judge and exterminate Jews in Israel.
Micheal Kinsley writes : “… it’s hard to be rational about the irrational. Who can guess intelligently what Osama bin Laden might want to try next?” (Time Magazine, 9 Sept 2002)
And that irrationality is clearly present in Moussaoui's ethics.
Some religions will fight to the death against a rational ethics, but the time for rational ethics -- Aristotle, Spinoza, Ayn Rand -- has come.
When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality." And that contradiction is evidence of serious flaws in religious moralities.
A non sequiter.
And remember, Jesus said that most people wouldn't be Christians, so if Christianity is true, a proliferation of other religions (and thus other religious moralities) is exactly what you'd expect.
For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only ethics worthy of carrying the name "moral."
But the "rational ethics" disagree with each other, and so would fall if the first quote weren't a prize piece of illogic.
Eh?
My conclusion follows from my premise, which in itself is factual.
Perhaps you don't know what a non sequiter is.
No it doesn't. A disagreeing with B doesn't necessarily mean both are wrong, except to a cracked mind.
Perhaps you don't know what a non sequiter is.
Perhaps I know exactly what it is, and you're such a bumbler you can't see one when someone waves it before your uncomprehending face.
A disagreeing with B does mean that one or both are wrong.
How can that be when it is God that guides them?
Show me disagreements in Aristotle, Spinoza and Rand ethics and we can then use our rational minds to resolve them while proceeding on to identify a more perfect, rational ethics.
And you'd go from the obvious, that one or both are wrong, to throwing out A, B, C, D, and E in one sweep. One is wrong, so all are, right?
How can that be when it is God that guides them?
And the unspoken assumption that God would guide all religionists is supported by what, exactly?
Show me disagreements in Aristotle, Spinoza and Rand ethics and we can then use our rational minds to resolve them while proceeding on to identify a more perfect, rational ethics.
But the very possibility of a rational ethic being correct has been rejected as soon as we know that contradictions are there. We can't have any special pleading for the chance to patch things up on your side when you've already rejected every religious morality because not all agree.
And I notice you've left out a few non-religious ethics purporting to build upon reason. Karl Marx and Peter Singer come to mind. For all I know, Spinoza would be in that category if you'd bother to read him. It doesn't do you any good to deny that Marx actually built on reason; I deny Muslims build on the will of God. So let's be consistent: Marx is in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.