tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4581294142141761950..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Ethics and World-ViewsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43602994071421515562009-06-25T19:43:08.612-07:002009-06-25T19:43:08.612-07:00There are two, and only two, basic or root world-v...<i>There are two, and only two, basic or root world-views: <br />1) the world is intended<br />2) the world is not intended<br /></i><br /><br />@Ilion - did you mean to say that most religious traditions are variants of #1, or of #2? I'm guessing #1.<br /><br />I would go on to suggest that many people secretly want to believe #2, but fear #1.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27999052649069599632009-06-25T17:47:31.740-07:002009-06-25T17:47:31.740-07:00I'm curious if you have ever considered this e...I'm curious if you have ever considered this ethical worldview (desire utilitarianism) found here:<br /><br />http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=772<br /><br />and here (which answers many questions):<br />http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=776Tory Ninjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18367022295078824206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12390763380749582682009-06-25T14:44:55.059-07:002009-06-25T14:44:55.059-07:00I don't know which I object to more, the ad ho...I don't know which I object to more, the ad hominem character of that comment (you only say that because you are a jew-protestant...classic Bulverism), or the comment's anti-Semitism.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58233890577156401102009-06-25T11:08:29.026-07:002009-06-25T11:08:29.026-07:00Yr another jew-protestant, Dr. Reppert. That's...Yr another jew-protestant, Dr. Reppert. That's the problem.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29042910429496438272009-06-25T05:30:08.835-07:002009-06-25T05:30:08.835-07:00This is a very helpful schema for understanding et...This is a very helpful schema for understanding ethics. Reminds me a little of CS Lewis's analogy for a fleet of ships, which have to be seaworthy, have to not crash into each other and have to journey to the correct destination.<br /><br /><i>"we need shared convictions to co-operate and act effectively"</i><br /> <br />This is an important point. In pluralist societies, we all have our own worldview and personal ethic, but society needs at least a common law, which will be based on a common, if somewhat truncated ethic (truncated because it deals mainly with actions and not thoughts, whereas personal ethics will include both).<br /><br />So our personal ethic needs to include the willing submission to society's law even at points when that may be opposed to my personal ethic. For example a person who is opposed to divorce or homosexuality must nevertheless accept society's laws and mores on those matters.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4653438295443849882009-06-25T04:58:25.490-07:002009-06-25T04:58:25.490-07:00There are two, and only two, basic or root world-v...There are two, and only two, basic or root world-views: <br />1) the world is intended<br />2) the world is not intended<br />And, theoretically, one anti-world-view:<br />3) there exists no world to be either intended or not intended<br /><br />Most <i>specific</i> world-views (and relegious traditions) are variations on 2).<br /><br />3) is theoretical because no one is able to actually believe that.IlĂonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14904321672114381942009-06-25T02:57:37.860-07:002009-06-25T02:57:37.860-07:00Given theism, is our purpose determined by Go?
Su...Given theism, is our purpose determined by Go?<br /><br />Suppose God said, "the purpose of humantity is to hate and kill and torture as much as possible"<br /><br />I assume this is absurd. Therefore we cannot say whatever God wants for us is our purpose"<br /><br /><br />On the other hand, if God is really the greatest GOOD, then OF COURSE whatvever God wants for us<br />is our greatest good. But its not a matter of arbtrary fiats, but of truthGordon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03223834584232283601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90968842456604796442008-06-07T11:55:00.000-07:002008-06-07T11:55:00.000-07:00Victor,I have not read Thiroux and Krasemann's boo...Victor,<BR/><BR/>I have not read Thiroux and Krasemann's book, but maybe I can make a helpful comment anyway (if only as a tangent). You explain that they look for non-religious foundations of morality because of religious pluralism. Well, one of the points of studying ethical philosophy is to guide our efforts to make the society in which we live more just. If we want ethics to help us improve society at large, then we need the confluence of individuals who may possess drastically different religious convictions. So, at least when we tackle ethical questions pertaining to the organization of society, we have good reason to make our efforts as religiously neutral as possible: we need shared convictions to co-operate and act effectively.Timmohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04095596090336782085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26319645050789627562008-06-05T07:32:00.000-07:002008-06-05T07:32:00.000-07:00"In our present day, whether one practices a relig..."In our present day, whether one practices a religion or not depends on what world-view one holds."<BR/><BR/>Not for me. One would hope that people practiced religion according to whether that specific one had sufficient *evidence*, rather than according to some a priori personal dispositions. <BR/><BR/>"Hope" being the key word.Staircaseghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02647353730607650698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80286433292493471372008-01-31T07:24:00.000-07:002008-01-31T07:24:00.000-07:00Thought provoking post."That said, I think that pe...Thought provoking post.<BR/><BR/><EM>"That said, I think that persons of differing world-views can only go so far in agreeing on their ethical convictions. I also think it would be silly for people who have moral convictions based on religion to set those considerations aside when doing ethics."</EM><BR/><BR/>I take heart in the observation that, in our pluralistic societies at least, conflict between faiths and philosophies is remarkably rare. To date, the usual stimulus for hostilities being when one group of people declare that their moral code justifies restricting the rights of another group of people. And yet, even these attitudes do not appear to maintain for long against the slow but firm drift of progression. There's hope for us yet.<BR/><BR/>To Architect,<BR/>One should be wary of authors who declare that they hold simple and conclusive answers to questions that have baffled the greatest philosophers and theologians for thousands of years. As much as it is tempting, and comforting, to subscribe to opinion purely because it supports what one has already chosen to believe, it is hardly the path to enlightenment.<BR/><BR/><EM>"Even as a naturalist, I have a creator (the universe, the planet, the ecology). The equivalent of worship would be time spent trying to preserve and improve upon the condition of my creator."</EM><BR/><BR/>An excellent point. The clarity of the line between atheism and deism has always been dependent on how one defines "The Creator".Incitatus4Congresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08099138083845953108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59995956129387203082008-01-21T08:30:00.000-07:002008-01-21T08:30:00.000-07:00Dr. Reppart,I congratulate on a very well-written,...Dr. Reppart,<BR/><BR/>I congratulate on a very well-written, balanced introduction to the various concepts.<BR/><BR/>One small quibble:<BR/><I>And as for our duties to a creator, a lot, of course, is going to depend on whether one thinks a deity exists. It is plausible to suppose that if a deity exists we ought to worship that deity in public, but if no deity exists then the time we spend worshipping ought to be spent elsewhere.</I><BR/>Even as a naturalist, I have a creator (the universe, the planet, the ecology). The equivalent of worship would be time spent trying to preserve and improve upon the condition of my creator.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87846022316798773182007-05-25T21:07:00.000-07:002007-05-25T21:07:00.000-07:00I congratulate Mr Fingerer on scientifically provi...I congratulate Mr Fingerer on scientifically proving that the human being has a distinct soul, scientifically disproving atheism, and proving that there is an absolute ethical standard. I looking forward to him being honored by the Nobel Prize Committee later this year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com