I Need Help!

[Storm]

As some of you know, I am taking a Build Your Own Theology class through my church. Well, I need help with my homework.

The assignment is: Write your ethical guidelines/ commandments.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for when I joined the class, but I have no idea where to begin.

I find I have trouble organizing and articulating my thoughts on such topics, with one exception: I'm good at answering questions. I ind the interview format relatively easy. I'm just no good at breaking such large topics down into questions.

So, would those of you who enjoy discussing such matters with me be willing help me by coming up with pertinent questions?

 

[Magic Man]

Maybe you could start with the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you".

Aside from that, do you think that the ends always/never/sometimes justify the means?

Maybe look at your views on controversial topics like abortion and capital punishment, along with freedoms like speech, marriage and religion. Do you think that people should be free to practice any religious practice they want, or are there limits? Should there be a limit on freedoms, like a limit on free speech?

What is the basis for what you find to be bad or wrong?

 

[Storm]

Maybe you could start with the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you".

That doesn't quite fit me, though. I think it's a beautiful philosophy, but I believe in giving others the treatment they earn.

I mean, if we practiced the Golden Rule - truly lived by it - it would necessitate letting violent criminals go free since that's what they want. That's an extreme example, of course, but it highlights my qualms with that philosophy.

Aside from that, do you think that the ends always/never/sometimes justify the means?

Sometimes. War, for instance, is inherently bad. However, it is sometimes necessary, like WWII.

Maybe look at your views on controversial topics like abortion

The rights of the woman trump those of the fetus. A necessary evil which I hope will one day be obsolete.

The answer, I think is in free access to contraceptives.

and capital punishment,

I agree with it in principle, but not practice. However, I am well aware that my views on this topic are far from rational. Because of this, I wonder if I should steer clear of this example. What do you think?

along with freedoms like speech, marriage and religion.

I support these things being as free as is possible within the functioning of society.

Do you think that people should be free to practice any religious practice they want, or are there limits?

I can't think of an example of a religious practice that should be verboten.

Even animal sacrifice, to choose an extreme example. After all, what's the difference between slaughtering a chicken for religious purposes, and slaughtering a chicken for dinner? The chicken's just as dead.

Should there be a limit on freedoms, like a limit on free speech?

As little as possible, but freedom does not mean irresponsibility. Slander rightfully has consequences.

What is the basis for what you find to be bad or wrong?

Harm to others, be it in the form of physical violence or unreasonable limitation on freedom.

 

[Magic Man]

That doesn't quite fit me, though. I think it's a beautiful philosophy, but I believe in giving others the treatment they earn.

I mean, if we practiced the Golden Rule - truly lived by it - it would necessitate letting violent criminals go free since that's what they want. That's an extreme example, of course, but it highlights my qualms with that philosophy.

Well, I have to say that that's not the way I see it. For one, if you did live by that rule, you wouldn't murder someone in the first place. For another, the way I see it, it's not just about how you would want to be treated but also how you should be treated. If I do something that warrants a punishment, I don't really want the punishment, but I also understand that I should be punished.

A common and not-serious example is going to a store at night when you really need something, and finding out the store is closed because I waited too long. I wouldn't then expect them to let me in, and so my "punishment" is to not be able to buy what I need. It doesn't equate with murder, but I think it's a good analogy.

Maybe the Wicca way of putting it is better, "An' it harm none". Does that fit you better?

Sometimes. War, for instance, is inherently bad. However, it is sometimes necessary, like WWII.

So, what would you say about that then? How would you word that as a rule?

The rights of the woman trump those of the fetus. A necessary evil which I hope will one day be obsolete.

The answer, I think is in free access to contraceptives.

So, the woman is more important to you. How would you put that into a rule to live by?

I agree with it in principle, but not practice. However, I am well aware that my views on this topic are far from rational. Because of this, I wonder if I should steer clear of this example. What do you think?

You can steer clear. I'm just trying to bring up things that usually make up the hard part of ethics. It's always easy to say "Don't murder" and "Don't steal", and I think the best way of putting them is, as I said before, the Wicca way "An' it harm none". But that doesn't differentiate anything. Answering the tough questions like this are what makes your view of ethics distinct.

I support these things being as free as is possible within the functioning of society.

I can't think of an example of a religious practice that should be verboten.

Even animal sacrifice, to choose an extreme example. After all, what's the difference between slaughtering a chicken for religious purposes, and slaughtering a chicken for dinner? The chicken's just as dead.

But then you have to show why killing someone for religious reasons is bad while killing an animal is acceptable. First, do you think we should kill animals to eat them? Beyond that, if you think we shouldn't, then what's the difference from taking an animal's life to eat it and taking a plant's life to eat it? Is it consciousness?

As little as possible, but freedom does not mean irresponsibility. Slander rightfully has consequences.

Harm to others, be it in the form of physical violence or unreasonable limitation on freedom.

Let's try this: What do you think the avatars are trying to teach us? If Hitler is an avatar as well as Mother Teresa, they both have things to teach us. What can Hitler teach us, and what can MT teach us?

The other questions were more to try to find a commonality among your beliefs, like a unifying theory.

 

[Storm]

Well, I have to say that that's not the way I see it. For one, if you did live by that rule, you wouldn't murder someone in the first place. For another, the way I see it, it's not just about how you would want to be treated but also how you should be treated. If I do something that warrants a punishment, I don't really want the punishment, but I also understand that I should be punished.

That's a fair perspective. It's not that there aren't arguments that make the Golden Rule make sense. I just think that the foundation of morality shouldn't need apologetics. Did that make sense?

Maybe the Wicca way of putting it is better, "An' it harm none". Does that fit you better?

Yes, it does. Of course, then the problem becomes how one defines "harm."

So, what would you say about that then? How would you word that as a rule?

Hmm. "While use of force should always be a last resort, it is sometimes necessary. We have an obligation to protect one another from harm. To 'draw a line against the darkness.' (~JMS). In defense of life, freedom, and justice, the violence is elevated from basest instinct to noble sacrifice. We will endure the horror of war that greater horrors might be defeated."

How does that sound?

So, the woman is more important to you.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say that the right of self-determination is more important than the right to life.

How would you put that into a rule to live by?

All I can come up with is platitudes.

You can steer clear. I'm just trying to bring up things that usually make up the hard part of ethics. It's always easy to say "Don't murder" and "Don't steal", and I think the best way of putting them is, as I said before, the Wicca way "An' it harm none". But that doesn't differentiate anything. Answering the tough questions like this are what makes your view of ethics distinct

Oh, it was an excellent question. It's just one on which I'm completely irrational, which strikes me a poor foundation for ethics.

But then you have to show why killing someone for religious reasons is bad while killing an animal is acceptable.

We have to look out for our own first. We engage in a social contract (without which we cannot function) that says murder is wrong. Meanwhile, we cannot eat without killing. So we prioritize. A human life takes precedence over that of an animal. That's just the way it is. I see it as neither laudable nor despicable.

First, do you think we should kill animals to eat them? Beyond that, if you think we shouldn't, then what's the difference from taking an animal's life to eat it and taking a plant's life to eat it? Is it consciousness?

I have no qualms with killing animals for food, but I'll address your second question anyway. I do not believe there is a cosmic heierarchy in which animal life is superior to plant life. Indeed, from the theological perspective, the life of a human has no greater value than the life of a tree. All life is precious. This is why I don't buy into the moral arguments for vegetarianism.

Let's try this: What do you think the avatars are trying to teach us? If Hitler is an avatar as well as Mother Teresa, they both have things to teach us. What can Hitler teach us, and what can MT teach us?

Each Avatar has their own lessons, there's no one answer to that question. Hitler taught us, among other things, the dangers of divorcing morality from progress.

I don't believe that Mother Teresa was an Avatar, so I'm going to substitute the Buddha. He taught a mystical methodology, a remarkably successful path to Enlightenment.

The lessons are highly diverse, with only one common attribute: they are intended to help us learn and Become more quickly.

The other questions were more to try to find a commonality among your beliefs, like a unifying theory.

If there is an underlying principle to my ethical code, it is that the struggle for morality is paramount. Which conveniently ties into my theology: the exploration of morality is humanity's primary function in the Becoming.

While we can't disengage from the struggle, we can make it a priority. We can subject ethical codes to criticism and examination, rather than passively accepting moralities imposed by some authority, and this is the truly superior path.

The conclusions reached don't matter near so much as the journey taken.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I mean, if we practiced the Golden Rule - truly lived by it - it would necessitate letting violent criminals go free since that's what they want. That's an extreme example, of course, but it highlights my qualms with that philosophy.

It strikes me that unleashing a violent criminal on society wouldn't be very good practice of the Golden Rule with regards to the criminal's next victims.



Back to the original topic, though, maybe this will help crystallize things a bit: out of all the range of possible human action, what's the worst thing you could justify with the proper ends or mitigation? What makes that your limit?

For example, would you never lie, even if it meant someone's death? Would you drown a sackful of puppies if (somehow) it meant the eradication of poverty for a million people?

You don't necessarily have to answer here... it's more just something to think about.

Edit - another question: do you think there is a single objective morality for all people? Is there such a thing as subjective or relative ethics?

 

[Storm]

It strikes me that unleashing a violent criminal on society wouldn't be very good practice of the Golden Rule with regards to the criminal's next victims.

Another fair point.

Back to the original topic, though, maybe this will help crystallize things a bit: out of all the range of possible human action, what's the worst thing you could justify with the proper ends or mitigation?

I'd have to go with war on that one.

What makes that your limit?

Well, feasible justification. I can't think of anything that could actually happen that would justify rape, for example. I mean, you could pose the question of a single rape somehow ending all sexual abuse, but that would never actually happen.

For example, would you never lie, even if it meant someone's death?

No. While honesty is a virtue, it is not an absolute one. Sometimes a lie is an exercise of compassion, which takes precedence, for me.

Would you drown a sackful of puppies if (somehow) it meant the eradication of poverty for a million people?

Yes, but again, that would never happen.

Edit - another question: do you think there is a single objective morality for all people?

No, but we're working on it.

Is there such a thing as subjective or relative ethics?

They're all subjective, for now. And mostly relative.

 

[Magic Man]

That's a fair perspective. It's not that there aren't arguments that make the Golden Rule make sense. I just think that the foundation of morality shouldn't need apologetics. Did that make sense?

It made sense, but I don't think it's apologetics. It's irrelevant here, though, I think.

Yes, it does. Of course, then the problem becomes how one defines "harm."

Well, that's you job, now isn't it?

Hmm. "While use of force should always be a last resort, it is sometimes necessary. We have an obligation to protect one another from harm. To 'draw a line against the darkness.' (~JMS). In defense of life, freedom, and justice, the violence is elevated from basest instinct to noble sacrifice. We will endure the horror of war that greater horrors might be defeated."

How does that sound?

Sounds good to me. The real question is "How does that sound to you?". This is, after all, your code of ethics.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say that the right of self-determination is more important than the right to life.

All I can come up with is platitudes.

Well, you could start with "The ends sometimes justify the means". Then you have to find a way to cover a generalization, so that the rule then applies to all (or all foreseen) circumstances. "The ends justify the means when..." Maybe when the amount of good of the ends outweighs the amount of bad in the means, or something like that.

Oh, it was an excellent question. It's just one on which I'm completely irrational, which strikes me a poor foundation for ethics.

Well, why do you think it is acceptable in theory? Why do you think it's unacceptable in practice?

We have to look out for our own first. We engage in a social contract (without which we cannot function) that says murder is wrong. Meanwhile, we cannot eat without killing. So we prioritize. A human life takes precedence over that of an animal. That's just the way it is. I see it as neither laudable nor despicable.[/quote]

So, would you say it doesn't factor into your code of ethics? Since you don't consider it bad nor good, then can a moral judgement be made concerning it at all?

I have no qualms with killing animals for food, but I'll address your second question anyway. I do not believe there is a cosmic heierarchy in which animal life is superior to plant life. Indeed, from the theological perspective, the life of a human has no greater value than the life of a tree. All life is precious. This is why I don't buy into the moral arguments for vegetarianism.

So, again, killing is acceptable under certain circumstances? What is the commonality between this and war? If killing is necessary in these two instances, why?

Each Avatar has their own lessons, there's no one answer to that question. Hitler taught us, among other things, the dangers of divorcing morality from progress.

I don't believe that Mother Teresa was an Avatar, so I'm going to substitute the Buddha. He taught a mystical methodology, a remarkably successful path to Enlightenment.

Interesting. I guess I assumed about MT. I'd be curious to know your criteria, then, for an avatar, but not necessarily here or now.

Now, the point is to try to explain what those avatars are trying to teach us. For instance, you could re-form "the dangers of divorcing morality from progress" into a rule. First, in that case, you'd have to establish what morality is.

The lessons are highly diverse, with only one common attribute: they are intended to help us learn and Become more quickly.

Well, that's a start. Then you have describe (not necessarily to me) what Becoming is, and how those lessons help us Become.

If there is an underlying principle to my ethical code, it is that the struggle for morality is paramount. Which conveniently ties into my theology: the exploration of morality is humanity's primary function in the Becoming.

While we can't disengage from the struggle, we can make it a priority. We can subject ethical codes to criticism and examination, rather than passively accepting moralities imposed by some authority, and this is the truly superior path.

The conclusions reached don't matter near so much as the journey taken.

So, then, killing isn't that bad, because it's part of the journey?

 

[Troublemane]

hey Storm, why not just write what you feel is the right thing? rather than adhering to the strict rules of making your own 'ten commandments" (which is really just repeating back to the prof what they want to hear), why not simply write down some simple Truths based on what you have experienced? does it have to conform to a specific outline?

:angel2:

 

[Storm]

Well, that's you job, now isn't it?

Heh, indeed.

Sounds good to me. The real question is "How does that sound to you?". This is, after all, your code of ethics.

I think I like it. I was mostly asking for a critique of the phrasing.

Well, why do you think it is acceptable in theory?

Because some crimes are so horrific that they place the perpetrator beyond redemption.

Why do you think it's unacceptable in practice?

Because I think the system as it stands is broken, and cannot be relied upon to execute the people who require it and only them.

So, would you say it doesn't factor into your code of ethics? Since you don't consider it bad nor good, then can a moral judgement be made concerning it at all?

I would say the theology doesn't factor into my code of ethics. A big part of my ethical code is the sanctity of the social contract, which places a great deal of emphasis on murder.

There's a disconnect between some of my theology and morality. My theology is about the divine ramifications, from which little judgement is passed. My morality, on the other hand is about living "on the ground." It's inherently selfish, because it has to be.

So, again, killing is acceptable under certain circumstances? What is the commonality between this and war? If killing is necessary in these two instances, why?

It is acceptable when necessary. When it's necessary, now that's the question.

Interesting. I guess I assumed about MT. I'd be curious to know your criteria, then, for an avatar, but not necessarily here or now.

I'll move that to the Any Questions? thread.

Now, the point is to try to explain what those avatars are trying to teach us. For instance, you could re-form "the dangers of divorcing morality from progress" into a rule. First, in that case, you'd have to establish what morality is.

Morality is under construction.

Seriously, the rules haven't been set yet. That's our job.

Well, that's a start. Then you have describe (not necessarily to me) what Becoming is, and how those lessons help us Become.

The Becoming is the process of God's maturation. The lessons help us by leading us to deeper understandings of ourselves and our reality.

So, then, killing isn't that bad, because it's part of the journey?

From the theological perspective, no. But again, there's that disconnect between the theological and the human. "On the ground," killing is serious business and should only be used as a last resort.

 

[Storm]

hey Storm, why not just write what you feel is the right thing? rather than adhering to the strict rules of making your own 'ten commandments" (which is really just repeating back to the prof what they want to hear), why not simply write down some simple Truths based on what you have experienced?

That's what I'm trying to do. I just suck at organizing my thoughts without the help of questions.

does it have to conform to a specific outline?

Haven't seen one, though it might be hidden in the reading I haven't gotten to yet. A sample outline would be a big help, actually.

 

[lilithu]

That's a fair perspective. It's not that there aren't arguments that make the Golden Rule make sense. I just think that the foundation of morality shouldn't need apologetics. Did that make sense?

The foundation of the Golden Rule is not apologetics. It's connection to the "Other." It's seeing the other person as you see yourself - a complex human being who deserves to be treated fairly.

The Golden Rule is Our First Principle, and our Seventh, wrapped into one. Which is why it exists in almost every religion.

Interesting that you posted about "Building Your Own Theology" in the Panentheism forum instead of the UU forum.

 

[lunamoth]

Perhaps concentrate on what you see as your concept of God and your relationship to God, and God's relationship to you and the world. The morals (relationship with other people) may flow from that.

2c

 

[rojse]

Maybe you could start with the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you".

I had thought of that, but this needs to account for the people that do not follow these rules - those that cheat, steal, lie, and murder.

 

[rojse]

As some of you know, I am taking a Build Your Own Theology class through my church. Well, I need help with my homework.

The assignment is: Write your ethical guidelines/ commandments.

How about: "Let's all be nice to eachother, you know?"
Or: "Try and consider the other person's point of view."

This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for when I joined the class, but I have no idea where to begin.

I find I have trouble organizing and articulating my thoughts on such topics, with one exception: I'm good at answering questions. I ind the interview format relatively easy. I'm just no good at breaking such large topics down into questions.

So, would those of you who enjoy discussing such matters with me be willing help me by coming up with pertinent questions?

Questions, questions, questions...

1. Should a morality system cater for different views on moral issues? Why?
2. Are there areas in which there are moral absolutes? What might these be?
3. What issues do you consider as being important? How are these linked in a way that others could readily appreciate? And are these issues which others agree are important?
4. What incentive do people have to follow your morality system?
5. How will your morality system manage with malcontents that decide not to follow this system?
6. Should this moral system be linked with any religion? Why?

I'll keep thinking about this one - an extremely interesting idea.

 

[Storm]

1. Should a morality system cater for different views on moral issues? Why?

One should always bear in mind that there is no universal morality. Before passing judgement, seek understanding.

2. Are there areas in which there are moral absolutes? What might these be?

There are things I can't see any possible justification for, like rape.

3. What issues do you consider as being important? How are these linked in a way that others could readily appreciate? And are these issues which others agree are important?

Hmmm. I'm going to think that one over for a bit.

4. What incentive do people have to follow your morality system?

If you need an external incentive, it's not for you.

5. How will your morality system manage with malcontents that decide not to follow this system?

Lead by example.

6. Should this moral system be linked with any religion? Why?

Well, whatever it turns out to be will be predicated upon my theology, which teaches that the struggle for morality is what's important (in a nutshell). I think that ties in nicely with the 7 Principles of UU, particularly the one that encourages "a free and responsible search for meaning." But if you're asking whether any of this is God's decree, the answer is no.

I'll keep thinking about this one - an extremely interesting idea.

I appreciate this.

 

[Storm]

I'm toying with the idea of creating guidelines for developn one's own morality. Would that be a cop out?

 

[3.14]

The assignment is: Write your ethical guidelines/ commandments.

1. Try not to kill rape or physicly harm someone, but if you fail to acomplish that face the consequences
2. Never intentionaly harm someone mentaly
3. Discipline and creativity can coexist don't let one rule the other
4. Human life is more important then wealth and power, respect that
5. Never take more then you need, even if you can

 

[Storm]

LOL, not that I don't appreciate the help, but I wasn't asking you to write them for me.

 

[lunamoth]

I'm toying with the idea of creating guidelines for developn one's own morality. Would that be a cop out?

I'm not sure it makes sense. Doesn't morality mean how you get along with others in relationship (even if the relationship is simply 'members of the same society' or even 'all human beings')? Thus, if it's how you choose to treat others regardless of what they may think about it...is it really morality?

Maybe it would be better described as your personal principles of conduct.