Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:01:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1420 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I appreciate everything you've said, David, but I have a question. If there
> is no "ultimate" ethic, doesn't it quickly become relativism? What if doing
> something bad makes me happy? Does that make it good? We are all morally
> flawed [1] to some extent or another, so don't we need an ethic that is beyond
> how we feel?
You understood everything I was saying! Woo hoo! (sorry to sidetrack, I've been
worried that my points were unclearly written-- I feel like I've repeated and
refined what I've said a whole bunch of times in this thread)
Anyway, on to a response... Yes, in fact I'd say it is relativism. In
actuality, with the 'happiness' example, I won't say QUITE what utilitarianism
suggests, but I'd be close to it. I think what my definition would be is that
if you believe your action is good, it's good. Behaving badly might make you
happy, but you still know it's wrong. If you think that it's actually a moral
act to go around killing people, then I can't say you're evil. I think my faith
in this system is that people's moral codes are very closely related. I said it
somewhere in this thread, I don't know where... but basically I've never met
nor heard of anyone who I think has a moral code that strays terribly far from
my own. Psychopaths may appear to, but put 'em in therapy, and they usually
begin to realize themselves all the wrong they've done.
> The Hebrews began with a moral code, the 10 Commandments. They quickly
> learned, as you suggested, that all kinds of corollaries were needed to
> clarify the law (Torah). You get something like the book of Leviticus. After
> many years you end up with the Mishnah and Midrash, but I digress.
A perfect example! Someone started to try and make an ultimate rule book... but
couldn't do it. To be a *perfect* moral code, it has to be infinite.
> My point is this. God gave these codes as *guidelines* for moral conduct.
> What happened was that people started paying more attention to fulfilling the
> law rather than how they were treating each other. Jesus' message hits this
> idea hard. Hypocrites! He cries out to the religious leaders of the day.
> They *were* following the law, but it wasn't near good enough. God knows our
> hearts, our innermost desires. *There* is where the "ultimate" ethic lies.
> We may be able to hide the truth and our true intentions to each other, but we
> cannot fool God.
>
> -John
Again, you're right on. You have to judge for yourself what is good and what
isn't. You can *say* you think your actions are moral, but as you say "we
cannot fool God". I'd say we cannot fool our hearts, but that's mainly
terminology. One could argue that God's desires are reflected in our hearts to
make the religious connection, but now _I_ digress.
My only disagreement is that the moral guidelines written in the 10
commandments aren't good enough. If the social standard changes enough, the
written rules have to change to reflect that. If the situation came up so often
that not respecting one's parents was a good act, that guideline becomes
somewhat useless. With a fade back to what I was saying earlier about
relativism, I don't think that the social structure will (or has) deviated
outside of the 10 commandments, but I will concede that it is possible for it
to do so.
Anyway, I think that as long as one truly acts according to what s/he feels in
his/her heart is good, they are a good person. That definition of what is good
in one's heart varies from person to person (I maintain) but not by all that
much.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
