Homer wrote:Paidion wrote:
Is an action morally right because God commands it?
It might not have anything to do with morality, it might be a positive command which makes it right regardless of morality, as is the case with many of our laws.
Isn't that just a restatement of the first, something is right because god commanded it?
Homer wrote:
Apos wrote:
Homer, I don't know if you can see it but your thanking my christian upbringing for my ethical sense is both arrogant and insulting. Please don't hang your biases on me.
Sorry if I offended you but you gave a rather Christian response and I would think some of your Christian upbringing, if that is what you had, would still have a positive effect on you. But then again I do not know what you were taught in your youth. I think there is a tad bit of bitterness in you. You should not have any grudge against Christ because of bad behavior on the part of those who claim to be followers of Him.
Thank you, I'm not bitter, but I do resent the implication that I am 'Christian' I suspect it is because the word has no meaning to me which is positive. For me it is neutral at best, and often negative. When I read you talk about 'Christian Ethics' I think you mean ethics like yours. Or perhaps ethics which are good. However I don't see your brand of Christian as any more or less Christian than that practiced by the Westbourough Baptists, as an extreme example. Both of you cite the bible, and a belief in Jesus. You may see yourself as a true Christian, and them as doing it wrong, but they probably see you the same way. For me to count one as "true Christians" and ignore the other would be to commit myself to a no true Scotsman fallacy. This is what I was trying to imply when I asked you about the christian values of christian parents who disown their children when the children come out as atheists, gay or both.
I don't have a grudge against Christ. As far as I am concerned he is a culturally relevant fictional character. Having a grudge against him would be like being angry at Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or Zeus.
Homer wrote:
Thanks Padion, saved me quite a lot of trouble digging up the punishment is useless citations
I do not want to get side tracked into a discussion about the efficacy of punishment. That it is useless is absurd; I know this from experience. You can get into all sorts of ramifications such as what kind of punishment, how does punishment relate to consequences, etc. It can be readily acknowledged that punishment is unlikely to change the heart.
Fair enough. 'Useless' was slight hyperbole. However I will argue that when dealing with animals punishment is the least effective form of conditioning. When dealing with humans it reinforces the idea that might makes right, and undermines a truly ethical understanding of the world. If you want to get into this conversation we can, if not then please understand my statements here are not controversial.
Homer wrote:
You should give to your charity only if you can do so with money you can spare and you know how your money is being spent.
If we are not willing to take any risk in our giving there will not be much giving done. As Christians we must be willing to risk being taken advantage of.
I find this really interesting. Obviously there will be some risk in any endeavor, but I would seek to minimize that risk in the effort of doing the most good. I don't give less because I research my charities. I give what I can afford and because my funds are limited I put them where I know they will be put to good use.
Homer wrote:
As for your starve the poor idea, I think it is clear that you would be decreasing the well being of everyone you treated so.
Agreed. But it would also benefit the strong and thus promote the survival of the fittest which is what most atheists believe "created" us. Our well being enhanced would counter-balance the harm so it would seem to be a wash if I understand your ethical system.
You are misrepresenting survival of the fittest. It is not about the most physically strong surviving, unless that physical strength overcomes all obstacles. In humans our fitness is based on our social interactions and tool use, far more than on our physical strength. The thing which sets us furthest above the competition is our technology and science.
Furthermore we can study the success of various previous and current human cultures, and we quickly see that those who embrace the kind of barbarism you are suggesting do not fare well. It is in our demonstrated best interest to nurture all of our members to the best of our ability.
Homer wrote:
The planet may indeed have limited resources but we could do a much better job sharing them.
Yes, if everyone followed the teachings of Christ there would be very few hungry children.
This leads to a tangent. We can talk about the teachings of Christ if you like, suffice to say I disagree with you.
Homer wrote:
All of this is relevant, so all I can say with your example is I do not have enough information to make a moral judgment.
The question is simple and straight-forward. You should be able to answer it as stated, the answer is easy for me. You appear to need a lot of detail to decide what to do as in your comments about helping the poor. Seems your ethical system is rather complicated. Sometimes an ethical question must be answered quickly without a lot of digging into the details such as whether a person should lie to save a life.
No it isn't. I agree we have to make snap judgments, regularly. If I had to make a call on your example given the limited information I'd be inclined to have the person pay the loan giver back and make them aware of the error. However if they were going to starve trying then I'd probably change my mind, but I would want to know why they took the loan in the first place. If the loan was offered predatorily then we'd be looking at the sin of usury, right out of the bible. Or just jerky lending practices. If the lender made regular gifts in the form of "loans" then it would be clear that keeping the money is best, especially if we knew that trying to pay them back would cause them emotional distress, and they were in no financial distress. The details matter. You seem to understand this, and yet don't seem to want to admit it.
Ultimately, each situation for ethical judgment will be unique. Some, like slavery and rape being almost universally bad, are easy calls. The situations where someone could argue for these things are so absurd as to be called fiction. In actual practice they are effectively, always bad.