Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: 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."

Logically, then, if we find contradictions between two systems of rational ethics in the same way that we can find contradictions between two religions, this would be evidence of serious flaws in rational ethics. If you want to be logically consistent, anyway.

So take any two distinct systems of rational ethics. In order to be distinct, either one must render judgement on a behavior where the other is silent, or they must disagree on some point (a contradiction). If they are both well-developed systems, it is doubtful that there would be many points at which one would render judgement while the other would be silent, and even enough of these would constitute somewhat of a contradiction.

The conclusion is this: if there exist two distinct philosophical systems of rational ethics, then YOU MUST ADMIT THAT RATIONAL ETHICS HAS THE SAME FLAW YOU ASCRIBED TO RELIGIOUS MORALITY.

If you want to be logically consistent, anyway.

BTW, did the Randian system agree in all points with the Aristotelian system? Just asking...

17 posted on 08/30/2002 1:17:29 PM PDT by Kyrie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Kyrie
if we find contradictions between two systems of rational ethics in the same way that we can find contradictions between two religions, this would be evidence of serious flaws in rational ethics.

In a rational world, humans make mistakes and contradictions happen; and man's progress toward "truth" requires the answering of contradictions -- the result being revised truth awaiting further contradiction.

When it settles, truth remains. That's the rational way.

Conflicts between religious truths, however, is usually seltled with massive bloodshed and terrible misery.

When that settles, some sort of miserable life might continue. That's the irrational way.

See the difference?

20 posted on 08/30/2002 1:37:04 PM PDT by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Kyrie
BTW, did the Randian system agree in all points with the Aristotelian system? Just asking...

Aristotle's Ethics of eudaemonism is known as the ethics of human happiness. And that happiness is best described in an old man that can only sit ... and smile.

Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics is the collection of observations regarding virtues and vices.

Rand's ethics is developed using the rational framework of reality along with man's nature and needs, and it is philosophically presented in chapter one of the collection known as "The Virtue of Selfishness."

Rand chose that "Selfishness" title for its shock value, mainly because the word selfishness has bad connotations as a result of Christian/socialist ethics and public brainwashing. Look selfish up in your own dictionary to see what it really means.

22 posted on 08/30/2002 1:55:10 PM PDT by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Kyrie
If you want to be logically consistent, anyway.

Ouch!

202 posted on 09/06/2002 8:46:35 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson