Is ethics easy?

[McCulloch]

We can know right and wrong fairly easy,

Correct English grammar might be quite difficult, but ethics, according to JP Cusick, is a simple matter.

[Divine Insight]

I think ethics can seem pretty easy to an individual. For example, I certainly don't have a whole lot of problem deciding for myself what I consider to be ethical. Although I suppose some people might struggle with what they consider to be ethical.

The problem of ethics doesn't become a problem unless we are seeking a broader consensus. I'm quite certain that a lot of people would not agree with my thoughts on ethics, and I don't agree with what a lot of other people feel is ethical either.

So individually ethics can be easy. But gaining a wide consensus on ethics is a whole other story.

We can know right and wrong fairly easy,

So therein lies the problem. In Cusick's quote who is the "we" and is there a broad consensus there?

[bluethread]

We can know right and wrong fairly easy,

Correct English grammar might be quite difficult, but ethics, according to JP Cusick, is a simple matter.

Personal or absolute ethics are easy for vastly different reasons and, for the most part, nonexistent in stable societies. Personal morality is easy because it is inherently narcissistic. Morality is whatever I say it is. In a society, this leads to anarchy. Absolute morality is easy because it is intellectually lazy. It results in lockstep conformity and stifles innovation. Constitutional morality is much more difficult and much more common in stable societies. It requires cooperation among a group of individuals and a cohesive framework that permits innovation, while protecting against anarchy.

[Divine Insight]

Personal morality is easy because it is inherently narcissistic.

What makes you say this? Are you just assuming this to be the case? Would this be the case for yourself? And if not, why would you think it would be the case for other people?

I think there are plenty of examples of altruistic people who have altruistic personal moral values and are often willing to do without for the sake of helping other people.

So I question why you would think that personal morality would "inherently" be narcissistic?

[JP Cusick]

We can know right and wrong fairly easy,

Correct English grammar might be quite difficult, but ethics, according to JP Cusick, is a simple matter.

Morals and ethics can get complicated the deeper we go, but the deeper we go means that first one must start on a solid foundation.

As such to first know right from wrong is fairly easy, as like this:

............. Wrongs .................... Rights
1) To lie is wrong - to be honest is right.
2) To steal is wrong - to never steal is right.
3) Adultery is wrong - monogamy and marriage are right.
4) Violence is mostly wrong - nonviolence is mostly right.
5) Selfishness is wrong - helping others in need is right.

If anyone follows these 5 then they have already crossed the threshold of righteousness.

The claim or pretense that some person does not know right from wrong is very shallow indeed.

In a Court of law then there is an accepted standard that every person has a fundamental knowledge of right from wrong even without being educated in it, and the only exception is the plea of insanity or temporary insanity which must be proven before being granted.

[Bust Nak]

4) Violence is mostly wrong - nonviolence is mostly right.

So much for a solid foundation when one of your fundamentals has built in wiggle room.

[bluethread]

Personal morality is easy because it is inherently narcissistic.

What makes you say this? Are you just assuming this to be the case? Would this be the case for yourself? And if not, why would you think it would be the case for other people?

I think there are plenty of examples of altruistic people who have altruistic personal moral values and are often willing to do without for the sake of helping other people.

So I question why you would think that personal morality would "inherently" be narcissistic?

Regardless of how the actions of those who believe in personal morality effect others, it is based entirely on one's person judgement, that is narcissistic. By definition, one who places one's personal judgement above all others can not be altruistic. It is not selfless, it is patronizing. Others may benefit, but others can just as easily be harmed and any third party benefit is secondary to the focus of the morality.

[Divine Insight]

............. Wrongs .................... Rights
1) To lie is wrong - to be honest is right.
2) To steal is wrong - to never steal is right.
3) Adultery is wrong - monogamy and marriage are right.
4) Violence is mostly wrong - nonviolence is mostly right.
5) Selfishness is wrong - helping others in need is right.

If anyone follows these 5 then they have already crossed the threshold of righteousness.

The claim or pretense that some person does not know right from wrong is very shallow indeed.

The problem is that your foundation is also very shallow indeed. Not to mention the vague wiggle room you've allowed in #4 as Bust Nak pointed out.

Morals and ethics can get complicated the deeper we go, but the deeper we go means that first one must start on a solid foundation.

Your so-called "foundation" wouldn't help at all when it comes to things like gay rights or transgender identities, etc. Your foundation doesn't even come close to covering those type of issues.

In a Court of law then there is an accepted standard that every person has a fundamental knowledge of right from wrong even without being educated in it, and the only exception is the plea of insanity or temporary insanity which must be proven before being granted.

A court of law only deals with man-made laws that are technically written into the law of the government in question.

Also, you mentioned in your "foundation set of rights and wrongs" that only monogamous marriage is "Right".

Who are you to day that? What wrong with consensual polygamy. How can you say that polygamy is wrong if everyone involved in he polygamous relationship agrees to is and honors the covenant of that specific arrangement.

Also, how can you claim that even "open" marriages are necessarily "wrong". What if two married couples all agree and are ok with swapping partners for sexual pleasure?

If everyone involved agrees with this arrangement who are you to say that it's "wrong"?

Don't get me wrong. I personally prefer monogamy. But this is because I'm a very private person and I'm not even interested in just having casual sex with a woman just for the sake of causal sex. So I would personally prefer monogamy. But this is just my personal preference. I can't say that having an open marriage would be wrong for some other couples.

Also, think about your #5 foundation. Suppose I'm married and I'm enjoying a great sexual relationship with my wife. But I have a friend who has no partner and he would very much like to enjoy sexual pleasure too. Well, wouldn't it be "selfish" of me to refuse to allow him to have the sexual pleasure of my wife's company if she was willing to have sex with him?

I'm just saying, where are you going to draw the line in your #5 and become selfish or possessive about things? Clearly, you're willing to draw the line when it come to sharing your wife.

Like I say, don't get me wrong, I draw the line there too, but I can't say that it's not a selfish act on my part thus violating YOUR #5 foundation of what you believe to be right and wrong.

[JP Cusick]

4) Violence is mostly wrong - nonviolence is mostly right.

So much for a solid foundation when one of your fundamentals has built in wiggle room.

The true Gospel is intended to have wiggle room because people are expected to use our own proper judgments in life.

Jesus made a point of denouncing strict rules and laws as missing the mark.

Violence is complicated, as like we must accept the reality of Police force, and the reality of sinful criminals.

When Jesus was asked about some basic list to follow of right and wrong then Jesus said this to a Scribe:
1) To love the Father with all thy heart, and with all thy understanding, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, this is the first commandment.
2) And the second is likewise to love thy neighbor as thy self.
This is not far from the kingdom of God.
Link Mark 12:28-34

God is raising children - not just obedient robots.

[Divine Insight]

God is raising children - not just obedient robots.

The analogy that an omnipotent omniscient God would need to raise children in a similar fashion that human parents might raise their children is actually an extremely failed analogy. So this idea that God is "raising children" is actually an extremely weak apologetic argument for this God.

To begin with many human parents are actually far more understanding and far better mentors than an invisible God who refuses to show himself or even answer a child's sincere questions.

Secondly, there should never be any reason for an omnipotent omniscient God to spank a child. Spanking is an extremely ignorant parental reaction, often required because the parent had already failed to be a good mentor. Spanking (or "violent punishment") is also not a good teaching technique. So any God who has to resort to spanking (or using violent punishments) has already proven that he is not omniscient by far.

Thirdly, Christian apologists seem to totally forget, or fail to understand, that in the real world mental illness plays a role. A mortal human parent would need to deal with mental illness in a child, and even be able to recognize that this is the problem which many moral parents cannot do because they are not omniscient. An omniscient God, on the other hand, should be able to recognize mental illness in his children instantly, and being omnipotent he should also be able to magically cure them instantly as well.

The mere fact that there exist mental ill humans is proof positive that there is no "Fatherly Parent God" who is trying to raise humans as his children.

Finally, if we are God's "children" then we too would be Gods who are simply in a childlike growing stage at this point. That might not sound too bad at first, but this doesn't fit in with a monotheistic Christianity. If we are all "Child Gods" then Christianity would need to be infinitely polytheistic because as humans mature to Godhood they would become independent God in their own right, just as a human child becomes an independent human adult.

This would then also bring up the question of whether the Biblical God was once a human child before growing up to become a God himself.

In short, this anthropomorphism of the Biblical God fails in so many ways. It doesn't work as an apologetic argument for this religious paradigm because it actually creates far more contradictions and problems than it pretends to solve.