Religion v Ethics

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Religion v Ethics

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

It is said that religion is the opiate of the masses.

How does ethics avoid a similar attack?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Religion v Ethics

Post #21

Post by 2ndRateMind »

JP Cusick wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote: Hmmm. Maybe some would say that while religion is the imposition of a code of behaviour, ethics is the study of such codes, and others, their efficacy and justification. Thus, while religion may demand, say, dispatching an animal by cutting it's throat, ethics would want to know why such a practice is best, if the animal suffers, and whether meat is murder, and if not, why not?
I like this definition of ethics.

But at some point ethics needs to make a decision between right and wrong, and that decision would thereby become the moral / the morality.

We can not tolerate a lukewarm ethics which questions everything without making the decisions and thereby making a moral code.

Constant ethical searching without conclusion would in itself be immoral.

A conclusion in example: The animal suffers, the meat is murder, thereby that is immoral, and so to stop that is moral.
Just so. I do not intend to get into a discussion about the morality of kosher and halal non-stun slaughter. Such was merely example. But I do think that if we take refuge in religiously, rather than ethically, justified, reasons for our behaviour, we are likely to have missed materially pertinent rationales.

As for what is right, and what is wrong: utilitarians want the outcome to be the greatest happiness of the greatest number; deontologists want compliance with categorically imperative rules; virtue ethicists want the flourishing of individual character. These are all good considerations, to my mind, and at this stage in the development of ethics as a field of philosophical enquiry, I prefer all these attitudes to morality considered.

Cheers, 2RM.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Religion v Ethics

Post #22

Post by 2ndRateMind »

JP Cusick wrote:
We can not tolerate a lukewarm ethics which questions everything without making the decisions and thereby making a moral code.

Constant ethical searching without conclusion would in itself be immoral.
It is not for me to dictate to you your ethics and moral stance. Your soul is your own to deploy. All I can rightfully do is bring to your attention considerations I have found relevant, and let you decide for yourself their proper impacts.

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Religion v Ethics

Post #23

Post by JP Cusick »

2ndRateMind wrote:
JP Cusick wrote: We can not tolerate a lukewarm ethics which questions everything without making the decisions and thereby making a moral code.

Constant ethical searching without conclusion would in itself be immoral.
It is not for me to dictate to you your ethics and moral stance. Your soul is your own to deploy. All I can rightfully do is bring to your attention considerations I have found relevant, and let you decide for yourself their proper impacts.

Best wishes, 2RM.
This is clearly where we part from each other as we are not on the same page, and this is a substantiation for my embrace of religion.

True religion requires that in cases of evil then we must dictate to others, and that we can not be separated from the lives of other people, and religion requires that we all have a duty to intervene for truth and for justice and for right against wrong.

This is why we have jails and prisons because we do not tolerate violent criminals.

Jails and prisons have been misused but the fundamental point and purpose remains.

Religion requires that we have wars of defense and of liberation, as like the 2nd WW and the US Civil War were sanctioned by right against wrong.

Of course wrongful wars have been fought in the name of religion, but the fundamental point and purpose remains.

And you put it more personal as like next door neighbors and friends and so too religion does not allow us to remain silent or tolerant nor complacent with other people who do wrong in our presence or in our view or in our knowledge.

If ethics can not tell other people when they are right or wrong - then that kind of ethics is morally bankrupt, and it must be shunned.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Religion v Ethics

Post #24

Post by 2ndRateMind »

JP Cusick wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote:
JP Cusick wrote: We can not tolerate a lukewarm ethics which questions everything without making the decisions and thereby making a moral code.

Constant ethical searching without conclusion would in itself be immoral.
It is not for me to dictate to you your ethics and moral stance. Your soul is your own to deploy. All I can rightfully do is bring to your attention considerations I have found relevant, and let you decide for yourself their proper impacts.

Best wishes, 2RM.
This is clearly where we part from each other as we are not on the same page, and this is a substantiation for my embrace of religion.
Uh huh. But there is a difference between dictating to every individual what their ethics should be, and deciding democratically such crimes as the society will not tolerate.

Seems to me, JS Mill's harm principle is influential in this regard. You may think my behaviour entirely immoral, but if it harms no one else, why should you or the state or the democratic consensus define it as criminal and seek to prevent it? On the other hand, if I am causing physical or psychological harm to others, society clearly should step in.

For what it's worth, I think owning a million dollars is immoral, given the sad plight of the world's poor. It could even be argued that hogging this sort of wealth is harming the poor, in that the money, more equitably deployed, could be used for their benefit. But owning a million dollars is not criminal, even if I think there is a case for that, and so my (liberal) path is to persuade, not dictate, to others, the correct moral attitude to this sort of excess of wealth in the face of the abject need of hungry, malnourished and starving.

I do not seek a law around this; only that others should consider the needs of their brethren humanity before they spend on luxury the resources others need simply to survive. And I want people on my side because they think that is right, not because some religious or civil or social law forces them to agree with me.

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #25

Post by bluethread »

2ndRateMind wrote:
Uh huh. But there is a difference between dictating to every individual what their ethics should be, and deciding democratically such crimes as the society will not tolerate.
I don't mean to pick on you, however, there are a few concepts that are being thrown around here in a rather haphazard fashion, and your post is as good as any to use in clarifying those concepts. So, here goes.

First, certain presumptions are being made with regard to the terms religion and ethics. The term "religion" is being used for a stand in for theistic legal code and "ethics" is being used for a stand in for rationalist legal code. It is important to be more specific with regard to these issues, because the principles being debated are related to specifics and not impressions.

Second, this is really a discussion of rational ethics verses constitutional ethics. It must be noted that the two are not mutually exclusive, so it is important to note the effect of each, when one is making a point. For example, your point regarding democratic ethics being less of an imposition than constitutional ethics. The fact is that they are both impositions. One is the imposition of the majority on the minority and the other is the imposition of a written code. Also, neither is necessarily more rational than the other. The majority can be quite irrational and a written code can line up quite well with sound rationality.
Seems to me, JS Mill's harm principle is influential in this regard. You may think my behaviour entirely immoral, but if it harms no one else, why should you or the state or the democratic consensus define it as criminal and seek to prevent it? On the other hand, if I am causing physical or psychological harm to others, society clearly should step in.
The problem here is determining what is "harm". Whenever an individual, state, or democratic consensus defines something as criminal, harm is implied. Even the fear that someone somewhere is having a good time can constitute harm, because it engenders fear. Of course, this is a form of morality based on projection and victimology, but my point is that "harm" is a term defined by a moral code, not an absolute that binds a moral code.
For what it's worth, I think owning a million dollars is immoral, given the sad plight of the world's poor. It could even be argued that hogging this sort of wealth is harming the poor, in that the money, more equitably deployed, could be used for their benefit. But owning a million dollars is not criminal, even if I think there is a case for that, and so my (liberal) path is to persuade, not dictate, to others, the correct moral attitude to this sort of excess of wealth in the face of the abject need of hungry, malnourished and starving.
Here we have a misunderstanding of simple economics, combined with ill defined concepts. Hogging is not a technical term, but if by that you mean hording, one does not horde wealth. One can horde assets, but wealth is assets in production. Regarding equitable deployment, if you mean equal deployment, that is a recipe for disaster. It is true that one can argue about what the wealthy are investing in, but taking those assets from the wealthy and having the government invest it, or just distributed among the masses, reduces the economy and really hurts the working poor, if not the poor in general.
I do not seek a law around this; only that others should consider the needs of their brethren humanity before they spend on luxury the resources others need simply to survive. I want people on my side because they think that is right, not because some religious or civil or social law forces them to agree with me.
Well, the wealthy generally spend a relatively small portion of their assets on luxury items. It is the poor, working class and neo-rich that spend a large portion of their assets on luxury items. Even with that, the purchase and care of luxury items employs artisans in the luxury industries. Those artisans are not necessarily rich themselves, and without the luxury industry they would be out of work.

So, you see these issues are not as simple, and the complications as easily solved, as many think. One can not just presume that most moral problems are caused by theism, or the fact that some individuals have control of more assets than others. Morality and economics are much too complicated to be fully embodied in simple platitudes.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #26

Post by 2ndRateMind »

[Replying to post 25 by bluethread]

Indeed, this is a common criticism of Mill, that he never actually defines what 'harm' is. Nevertheless, I think we can take a simple, common sense approach to this; if you damage my person, property or interests, you are inflicting harm on me. The greater the damage, the greater the crime.

Which brings me onto excesses of wealth, and my alleged misunderstanding of economics. The fact is, there is just so much wealth in the world - Credit Suisse estimates this to be 256 trillion dollars (2016). Call this $X. And the world produces so much in any given year. The CIA estimates this to be 107.5 trillion dollars (2016). Call this $Y. And there are so many people in the world. Say, 7 billion, to keep the numbers round. Call this Z people.

You do not have to be a mathematical genius to figure out that an equal distribution of the world's wealth would be $X/Z, and an equal distribution of the world's income would be $Y/Z. This amounts to around $36000 net worth for each man, woman and child, and around $15000 annual income. It is perfectly possible to live on this, and live well; and I do.

The trouble is, the world's wealth is not distributed equally. 8 people, apparently, own as much as the bottom 50%, or 3.5 billion people (Oxfam). The richest 1% of the world own as much as everyone else put together (The Guardian). And every $ they own is a $ the poor don't. The result is private jets and gin palace yachts while there is simultaneously widespread deprivation, hunger, and malnourishment, and even deaths by starvation and hunger related, preventable disease.

The conclusion is simple and inescapable; that the rich, by amassing their excesses of wealth, are preventing the poor from enjoying a decent life, and damaging the absolutely poor both in their persons and interests, and inflicting harm, sometimes fatal harm, upon them by the exercise of their avarice.

It needs to stop.

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #27

Post by 2ndRateMind »

2ndRateMind wrote:
Uh huh. But there is a difference between dictating to every individual what their ethics should be, and deciding democratically such crimes as the society will not tolerate.
bluethread wrote:For example, your point regarding democratic ethics being less of an imposition than constitutional ethics.


I did not say that.
bluethread wrote:The fact is that they are both impositions.
Of course. And I think we probably agree that the fewer impositions, the better.
bluethread wrote:One is the imposition of the majority on the minority...
Not necessarily. There is such a thing as agreed consensus. I find no minority that seriously argues that murder should be legal.

But I seem to have greater faith in the democratic process than you. Seems to me that most people are reasonably good, sensible and virtuous. But that a few are not good, not sensible, and not virtuous. And where this minority wants to inflict direct and deliberate harm on others, they jolly well should be imposed upon.

Cheers, 2RM.

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Religion v Ethics

Post #28

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Wootah wrote: It is said that religion is the opiate of the masses.

How does ethics avoid a similar attack?
The topic of the thread suggests that Religion is against Ethics or Ethics are against religion. I don't agree with the expression. Ethics is a part of religion. Did I understand the topic of the thread correctly, please?

Regards

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #29

Post by bluethread »

2ndRateMind wrote: [Replying to post 25 by bluethread]

Indeed, this is a common criticism of Mill, that he never actually defines what 'harm' is. Nevertheless, I think we can take a simple, common sense approach to this; if you damage my person, property or interests, you are inflicting harm on me. The greater the damage, the greater the crime.
That is my point. You are using a moral imperative to define "harm", i.e. a violation of property rights. It would then be circular reasoning to say that violation of property rights is wrong because it is "harm". The better argument is the social order argument. If one wishes to have social order, there must be property rights.
Which brings me onto excesses of wealth, and my alleged misunderstanding of economics. The fact is, there is just so much wealth in the world - Credit Suisse estimates this to be 256 trillion dollars (2016). Call this $X. And the world produces so much in any given year. The CIA estimates this to be 107.5 trillion dollars (2016). Call this $Y. And there are so many people in the world. Say, 7 billion, to keep the numbers round. Call this Z people.

You do not have to be a mathematical genius to figure out that an equal distribution of the world's wealth would be $X/Z, and an equal distribution of the world's income would be $Y/Z. This amounts to around $36000 net worth for each man, woman and child, and around $15000 annual income. It is perfectly possible to live on this, and live well; and I do.
The problem here is that you are equating wealth with currency. Currency is limited by governing authorities. However, wealth is only limited by the willingness of the populous to exchange goods and services. Adam Smith makes this clear in "Wealth of Nations".
The trouble is, the world's wealth is not distributed equally. 8 people, apparently, own as much as the bottom 50%, or 3.5 billion people (Oxfam). The richest 1% of the world own as much as everyone else put together (The Guardian). And every $ they own is a $ the poor don't. The result is private jets and gin palace yachts while there is simultaneously widespread deprivation, hunger, and malnourishment, and even deaths by starvation and hunger related, preventable disease.


This is a common misconception. You are presuming the assets controlled by one person is taken from another person. If that asset is held static, the "poor" do suffer. However, if the "poor" are permitted, by the owner, to use that asset to produce more and/or better assets, the economy expands and the "poor" are benefited. In fact, that latter is exactly what does happen in a free market economy. If one that asset from the "rich" and give it to the "poor" for consumption, rather than production, the economy contracts and the "poor" suffer.
The conclusion is simple and inescapable; that the rich, by amassing their excesses of wealth, are preventing the poor from enjoying a decent life, and damaging the absolutely poor both in their persons and interests, and inflicting harm, sometimes fatal harm, upon them by the exercise of their avarice.
The reality is that the rich don't amass wealth, they amass assets. The wealthy do not amass assets. They put those assets in production to create wealth, permitting the "poor" to earn a decent living by taking part in that wealth creation. You are taking a caricature of the rich and applying it to everyone who has control of assets. If your analysis were true, the Gates Foundation would be a mechanism of avarice and not a mechanism for good.
It needs to stop.
Show me where that scenario actually takes place and I will condemn that individual along with you. However, even in those cases, incentives are much more effective in minimizing hording, than is confiscation. We have come full circle. If one wishes to have social order, there must be property rights and that means the right to use the assets one owns as one sees fit.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #30

Post by 2ndRateMind »

[Replying to post 29 by bluethread]

Actually, you cannot usefully distinguish between currency and assets in this case. All the assets of the world are as valuable as all the currency of the world. It makes no difference whether there is ten times less, or ten times more, currency. All that happens is that the nominal price of any asset is ten times smaller, or ten times larger.

As for property rights, I am by no means against them. Up to a certain point, which is that point where one person's wealth deprives another of a decent life, or $X/Z net worth and $Y/Z income. Above this point, the legal property claim of the rich seems to me to be outweighed by the moral property claim of the poor.

I have already said explicitly that I do not seek any compulsion around such a redistribution of wealth. I think the ethics of it have sufficient force of their own.

As for the Gates Foundation, I applaud their work. It is an exemplary endeavour, and precisely the kind of project I am talking about, and want to see replicated by all the rich. Nevertheless, if Gates were not so wealthy, and his wealth were more equitably distributed, his charity would not be so necessary.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Post Reply