Unless, of course, you deny that there is a principle of justice, as one can certainly do in your moral formuation. If the principle of justice–or any other moral principle–is subjective, then I am free to adopt or ignore as I see fit. How can you appeal to a universal sense of justice in the absence of an objective standard of justice? What is the origin of this princple of justice, in your ethical framework?
I could deny it, but I would do so in opposition to almost every person who has ever thought on the subject, whether Christian or otherwise.
Here we are in agreement. The question is, from where does this collective sense of right and wrong originate? I believe in God, and that God is the origin of this innate moral sense. Where, in your opinion, does this collective consciousness come from, if its not external to human beings?
Certainly not. Can you accept the idea that, were God proven, conclusively, not to exist that the world would become a far more unpleasant place to be, in very short order? We have enough history behind us now to see what happens to societies where the idea of God has been abandoned. Would you prefer to live in such a society? Or would you prefer a society where there is the belief in a just and loving God who expects human beings to behave in certain ways? The belief in God–whether you believe in God or not–is a moderating force in the lives of individuals. Remove that force, and you have Stalinst Russia, Communist China, and Nazi Germany. You have the rule of the strong over the bleatings of the weak. You have genocide. You have death camps. You have euthanasia for the unfit. (I would include modern day Western Europe, as well, although they are only in the beginning of their moral collapse.) History shows us what societies turn into when the idea of God is taken away, every time. No thanks.
Thanks for this. Believe me, it isn’t just CAF that plays host to mean-spiritedness and downright rudeness. I am a member of a couple of other forums - not religious ones - and there is just as much bluster and bombast there as here.It is refreshing to have a reasonable, polite discussion with someone about matters that we disagree over. I’ve found a certain mean-spiritedness and shrillness on CAF too many times. Thanks for calm, rational, and agreeable disagreements, Sair.
Assuming that there is such a thing as a collective consciousness (and that it can be known), the number of behaviors that people collectively agree on is a great deal smaller than the number of behaviors individuals actually believe are right or wrong. If your ethical standard is based on what everyone else believes then you have no basis for forming a position on those issues where people disagree. Humanists however, like everyone else, have definite positions on most moral questions, even those on which they have no sound basis for deciding.
To pose another example, the Ten Commandments also represent a very small number of moral precepts upon which a large amount of expansion and additional explanation has been made. This is not to say that the Ten Commandments are inadequate, merely that additional information might be required to know how to apply them in different circumstances. The same applies to humanist principles - they are broadly phrased, to allow them to be applied over a wide range of situations.
The abuse goes on because it is culturally normative. Who are we to tell the Saudis (for example) what is right or what is wrong? In their view, in their society, in their culture, women are treated in ways that you or I find abhorent. What princple are we appealing to when we tell the Saudis that they are ‘wrong’? According to secular humanism, we are telling them that–in our opinion–they are wrong. To claim that there is a ‘human right’ to certain freedoms that applies to all people, regardless of social norms, implies that those rights exist beyond our opinions about them.
My speculation - for such it must be, as I cannot profess to be an expert in this field - is that the evolution and development of human beings as social creatures provided the foundation for moral principles. In practice, humans as a species have had to develop means of relating to each other, and, as Harvard Professor Steven Pinker argues, if you were to approach your fellow man (or woman) and ask for help when you were in need, you could not expect to be taken seriously in your request unless you undertook to make return in kind - to help your fellow when he or she was in need. Some form of reciprocity is essential for healthy relationships to flourish - all parties to the relationship must receive some genuine benefit, otherwise the relationship falters and becomes exploitative, even abusive.
Hello, I just wanted to say that you realy made me think of long ago when I had invited a group of people into my house and we were discusting,the blood of a person and having blood transfusions. Wether it was right or wrong and it did say in the bible the life is in the blood in the old testament,so I thought it was wrong. And I figured I’d never change my mind about it,untill the day years later I got a call from the hospital saying my daughter was loosing blood and needed a transfusion. Two doctors were on the phone begging me to tell her it was ok. It didnt take me a minute to think about it I could hear her in the background crying and then they gave the phone to me and I said Robin, Please take the transfusion,I love you please it’s ok she was hemoriging,and was going to die if she didnt take it. I think what your trying to say about abortion may be in that area of thought? But the transfusion was one life and abortion is two seperate people,and only one decides,the other has no say
I hope I was of some help? NancyI don’t know why multi-quote won’t work for me, I’m left to my own means.
Hiyas Nancy
I would certainly agree that humans have managed to justify all manner of evil throughout history. But this has happened regardless of the religious mores by which people have historically governed their lives. It is very possible to interpret the Bible in such a way as may be used to justify rape, genocide, incest, execution for small indiscretions… I think the problem is that it is so often easier to be selfish than to be altruistic, particularly in modern Western society where individualism has become so firmly entrenched. To believe that there is a moral code is not the same thing as adhering to it, and any number of excuses may be found for doing things that are not in keeping with one’s stated ethics, be they religious or humanist.
The answer should be obvious to your friend. In one case, you have the deliberate killing of a human being for no reason whatsoever - none. In the other case, you have soldiers searching out individuals who wish to harm others, and they wish to harm for no reason whatsoever - none.
With all due respect, friend, that’s a fairly simple view of a much more complex issue. No one knows how many civilians have died in Iraq–our own government admits to close to 100K. Civilians aren’t out to hurt anyone; they are simply trying to survive in a war zone. War is evil, and results in the deaths of innocents. Let’s not confuse terrorists with the overwhelming vast majority of the dead in Iraq: just people. Innocent people.
The abortion issue is not complex!!