An ethics without God... (Earth, choices, choice, God, religion)

[Sunstone]

"Let me give you a definition of ethics: It is good to maintain and further life; it is bad to damage and destroy life." -- Albert Schweitzer

There is no mention of God in this statement. Is this ethics that Schweitzer points to an adequate one even without its being tied to deity? Do we need God to make this a sound ethics? Or does it stand by itself?

[Lightkeeper]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

"Let me give you a definition of ethics: It is good to maintain and further life; it is bad to damage and destroy life." -- Albert Schweitzer

There is no mention of God in this statement. Is this ethics that Schweitzer points to an adequate one even without its being tied to deity? Do we need God to make this a sound ethics? Or does it stand by itself?

It stands by itself. However, some people would say that "good" would refer to God. Did he have a reference for his statement. How do we know he didn't get it from some religion?

[Engyo]

Sunstone -

Another example would be the Buddhist Eightfold Path. No mention of nor basis in any supreme being; just a guideline for successful living here on earth among humans, and among all the other creatures which inhabit this planet. Its ethos is based on the idea of limiting the amount of suffering caused by one's choices and actions in living.

[linwood]

Yet another example is the Wiccan Creed.

"Do what you wish, as long as it harms none."

Schweitzers statement is more than adequate it`s perfectly all encompassing.

[logos]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

"Let me give you a definition of ethics: It is good to maintain and further life; it is bad to damage and destroy life." -- Albert Schweitzer

There is no mention of God in this statement. Is this ethics that Schweitzer points to an adequate one even without its being tied to deity? Do we need God to make this a sound ethics? Or does it stand by itself?

Indeed, it does not make reference to a deity, however, one must ask where this thought originates. At base, how do we know that "It is good to maintain and further life; it is bad to damage and destroy life?" Where do we learn that from, is it intrinsic or learned?

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by logos

Indeed, it does not make reference to a deity, however, one must ask where this thought originates. At base, how do we know that "It is good to maintain and further life; it is bad to damage and destroy life?" Where do we learn that from, is it intrinsic or learned?

I'm reading After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre and he says it is learned - that ethics develop with cognative ability.

-pah-

[Green Gaia]

Yet another example, "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that is my religion (could be read ethics)".--Abe Lincoln.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by pah

I'm reading After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre and he says it is learned - that ethics develop with cognative ability.

-pah-

Is that to say the smarter one gets the more ethical they become?

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Is that to say the smarter one gets the more ethical they become?

No, it means that minds with limited cognition can not develop ethics until one can understand the reason for it

-pah-

[logos]

Originally Posted by pah

No, it means that minds with limited cognition can not develop ethics until one can understand the reason for it

-pah-

Would that include those that have a limited mental capacity such as children and the handicapped? If so, does that mean that they are inherently unethical?

Thanks