Yadda wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 3:28am:


Can you accept that what may be good for one person or community may be bad for another? It's all a question of reference point.

Think of it like a financial transaction. One man's bargain is another man's loss. Eventually everything balances out.  

Let's say that a community is in danger of losing their livelihoods, and one enterprising person diverts water from a river during near-drought conditions to grow more crops. The community thrives. That person is a hero (good)

Downstream,  another community suddenly finds that it's out of water. People starve - children die. Now that man is a murderer (bad).

The two communities are in different countries.

Clearly to murder a person is unethical.

Christian ethics has a strong teleological focus which causes a considerable skewing in societies that are largely Christian.  

You could call it results-based ethics. In the case of Christianity, it's a question of risk of going to hell or a fall from grace, spending a minimum time in purgatory, depending on the particular sin and branch of Christianity.
Quote:


I thought I explained that risk minimisation was just one factor.

muso wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 11:04pm:

He wasn't murdered. He was sentenced to death. Not the same thing, ethically.

Quote:

Well, I just wanted give Yadda a chance to reply, but is it entirely? What were the circumstances of India gaining independence in 1948? 

Yadda - You are a follower of Jesus Christ. How do you reconcile your statement:

Quote:


......with Biblical teachings?

It's clearly not what the Bible says. The whole message of Jesus in the gospels is one of peaceful resistance - Love thy enemy, turn the other cheek.

Nowhere does it say to attack aggressors. In fact the parable of the tares makes exactly that point. I'll expand on that if you wish, but basically the message is that it is not our position to judge and take action - it will all be set right on the day of judgement.

Soren wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 10:53pm:


- not unlike today's situation between (that most Christian of countries) the United States, and Julian Assange in fact.

They would definitely crucify him if they could get a hold of him.

muso wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 10:08pm:



Response...

Dictionary;
ethical = = morally correct.

Dictionary;
ethics = =
1 moral principles governing or influencing conduct.
2 the branch of knowledge concerned with moral principles.


The highest ethical position, imo, would be to allow all persons to decide what is in their own best interests.
And to then, allow those persons to act in their own best interests.

Of course those persons whom we define as a criminal and as non-criminal, would make different life choices.
But the criminal, and the non-criminal personality, would each consider that they were acting ethically.
e.g.
A criminal always considers that, in destroying another person so as to further their own [selfish] interests], they are acting ethically.
Why so?
Because otherwise, the criminal personality could not act in the way they do.
Because, what we believe [including criminals], always determines how we act [i.e. what we believe affects our behaviour, and our life choices].


Ethics is about [determining, AND, having already determined] what is good. [i.e. the feed back loop]
Ethics is about making choices [which have consequences], based what we believe is good, and morally acceptable.
We come to such determinations, on a personal level, through the 'feed back loop' of life's experience.

But how do we, or how should we, define what is 'good'?
And how do we, or how should we, define what is 'evil', or wicked behaviour?

+++

PROPOSITION...
If there is no God, then good and evil are meaningless concepts, except as they are defined by society, and/or by ourselves.
Logically, [if we can ignore or evade societies rules, i.e. if we can evade its 'ethics'] we ourselves [within our own 'sphere of influence'] always become the absolute arbiters of what is 'good', and, 'evil'.

Q.
And so, what happens, 'ethically', within an environment where there are no overriding rules?

A.
Whatever gives us pleasure, and materially enriches us [so as to enable us to gain yet more pleasure], IS DEEMED TO BE GOOD.
And whatever stands in the way of us obtaining pleasure, logically, HAS TO BE BAD, AND 'EVIL'.

Q.
And what is [or seems to be,] the primary 'morality' which has precedence in this age?

A.
"If it feels good, do it!"

And, in an environment where ['morality'] rules are essentially absent, feelings of 'guilt', are 'illogical', as feelings of guilt do not serve us, in the delivery of those things which give us pleasure.

So the logic of an unethical [in my eyes] man goes;
"Why shouldn't i do whatever will give me the most pleasure in this life??"

+++

PROPOSITION...
The criminal and a non-criminal personality will always be in conflict, and will always define 'ethical behaviour' differently.
A criminal personality, and a non-criminal personality, will ALWAYS be in conflict with each other [on some level], because their respective interests do not coincide [concur] - on an 'ethical' level.

+++

IMO, 'freedom', and 'the pursuit of pleasure', to this generation of mankind, means being able to do whatever they like,
...so long as there are no adverse consequences for themselves.
And that is basically what our society actually teaches our children.
[i.e. avoid consequences, at all costs!]

Like their community leaders [i.e. politicians], this generation want to exercise authority and freedom, but, they invariably seek to reject responsibility [for the consequences of their choices].
Not so?
Look at the stories on the TV news each night.

IMO, the moral 'imperative' for modern, natural man, is this;
Whether i do something good, OR, or whether i do something evil, is unimportant.

What is important, is this;
Is such an action 'in my interests', AND, can i get away with it?
If i can, AND, if such an action is in my interests, it is 'good', otherwise it is 'bad'.

If 'ethical behaviour' is defined as acting 'morally'.
How would immoral behaviour be defined?

I offer this;
Immorality = = I make my own rules. [i.e. I am my own god. "...shewing himself that he is God."]
I can do whatever i like, as long as i can get away with it.
i.e.
"If there are no consequences [brought upon me] for my actions, then what's the prob!!?"

Well, i am a person who does believe in the scientific process.
And i deeply believe in the scientific principle of 'cause and effect'.


+++
To me, freedom means, i should try to separate myself from those influences, which, if i allow them act upon me, and my life, they will cause my bondage [through their consequences].
i.e.
If i separate myself from wickedness, in my life, i will, remain free, AND, happy.
This is the principle of, 'Cause and effect'.
Its not rocket science.

Some time ago, i saw an approximation of our society's 'morality' emblazoned on a T-shirt;
"Its only illegal if they catch you."

Murder?
Paedophilia?
The assault and rape of granny's within the confines of their own homes, by young house breakers?

Its only illegal if they catch you?

If that is not the prevailing 'moral principle', for many, then may i suggest that you have not been watching the nightly TV news.

Yadda wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 10:58am:



Further...

Morality = = I treat others, as i would like to be treated myself.

Leviticus 19:18
...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

The OT Bible teaches and encourages altruism, through adoption of moral standards, and through [applied] judgements, made against a moral standard.
[i.e. God's moral standard.]

I am a student of the Bible.
And IMO, the OT Bible does teach man ethical behaviour.

And in my experience, people who reject that last proposition [that the laws in the OT Bible teach ethical behaviour in man], are either,
1/ uninformed [i.e. wilfully ignorant], or,
2/ they are invariably people who seek to reject any responsibility for the consequences of their own choices.

Immediately above, i said,
"Morality = = I treat others, as i would like to be treated myself."
i.e.
I believe, that if i murder, i forfeit the right to my own life.
i.e.
I believe that if i murder, then it is a moral act, for another person to act towards me, in the way i myself have behaved.

Deuteronomy 19:19
Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
20  And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

+++

"We had thought that we were human beings making a spiritual journey; it may be truer to say that we are spiritual beings making a human journey."
Teilhard de Chardin