That is a popular perception, but not a well demonstrated one.Hitler? Bahgdadi? The world is better off without them.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That is a popular perception, but not a well demonstrated one.Hitler? Bahgdadi? The world is better off without them.
That would be in direct conflict with Biblical law and commands. Slavery, killing people for apostacy and worshiping other gods, disallowing women to "usurp authority" and hold it over a man, the Bible has its laws, rules, and policies, but many of them are not ethical. But for Abrahamic to improve things, they must be willing to acknowledge that the laws and policies given to them by god--things they are expected by him to adhere to--aren't good enough and are ethically difficeint.I think most religious people in the Abrahamic family will agree that they are duty bound to improve ethically.
Arguably not even then.In this case we don't know the right or wrong until we take account of the results?
That is one of the reasons, certainly.Kind of how I look at it. I try to make the choices that will, I think, cause the results I desire. To me each situation I face is likely more unique than not so ethical guidelines may not be useful.
While I do use my past experience to try to make to make the best choice, it all geared to the outcome I personally desire. Someone else maybe working for a completely different outcome. This makes it hard to have any kind of universal ethics.
Consequentialist debates are really more about how outcomes effect society rather than just individuals.In this case we don't know the right or wrong until we take account of the results?
Kind of how I look at it. I try to make the choices that will, I think, cause the results I desire. To me each situation I face is likely more unique than not so ethical guidelines may not be useful.
While I do use my past experience to try to make to make the best choice, it all geared to the outcome I personally desire. Someone else maybe working for a completely different outcome. This makes it hard to have any kind of universal ethics.
They killed thousands upon thousands of people. They were very dangerous men, and had they not been stopped they would have kept killing, and it's just not likely they could be rehabilitated. Ultimately, had someone shot Hitler dead during his first failed coup then the European Jewish population wouldn't have been nearly exterminated.That is a popular perception, but not a well demonstrated one.
There is a very good argument to be made that it could have been even worse in that case, though.They killed thousands upon thousands of people. They were very dangerous men, and had they not been stopped they would have kept killing, and it's just not likely they could be rehabilitated. Ultimately, had someone shot Hitler dead during his first failed coup then the European Jewish population wouldn't have been nearly exterminated.
That would be in direct conflict with Biblical law and commands.
So? The world is better off without Himmler and Bin Laden as well.There is a very good argument to be made that it could have been even worse in that case, though.
Gender equality is moral y superior. The Bible does not allow it. Freedom of religion is superior. The Bible explicitly prohibits it under the penalty of death. If you suffer a witch to live, it's the moral and ethical choice, but it's not what god commanded.Nonsense.
Consequentialist debates are really more about how outcomes effect society rather than just individuals.
Maximizing personal happiness while minimizing personal suffering is more along the hedonism line.
We probably would be better off not going out of our ways to be our own butchers, you know.So? The world is better off without Himmler and Bin Laden as well.
There are those (myself included) who think that there is a moral duty even if we do not quite perceive it, and if we can not demonstrate whether it was exerced wisely.Fair enough but then I'd think right and wrong would be left to historians to decide. Beyond my personal scope so not something I'd normally take into consideration in my actions.
They killed thousands upon thousands of people. They were very dangerous men, and had they not been stopped they would have kept killing, and it's just not likely they could be rehabilitated. Ultimately, had someone shot Hitler dead during his first failed coup then the European Jewish population wouldn't have been nearly exterminated.
I disagree that these categories represent a sort of 'progression' to these families of ethical theories. There is not just one of each kind, and often, the concepts used in one can be adapted for use in the others, and there are many different formulations in each of the categories...the concept of The Golden Rule, for example...There is a school of thought that thinks of ethics as obedience to rules. It is more formally called deontology, and somewhat popular among the Abrahamic Faiths.
Deontological ethics - Wikipedia
Competing views attribute significance to the consequences of the actions as opposed to just the actions themselves and their suitability to some set of rules.
One of those competing views is pragmatic ethics, which acknowledges that moral rules should be questioned and improved when the opportunity arises.
Another is virtue ethics, which perceives and describes ethics as a practice, as the expression of wisdom and virtue as opposed simple obedience to the authority of certain rules. By that perspective, ethics are skills that can be learned and trained.
And the last major school of thought on ethics is consequentialism, which states that the moral validity of an action (or inaction) can only be gauged from its consequences.
By my understanding, there is a progression of accuracy in this sequence of perspectives on ethics. Of accuracy, and also of boldness and scope. Deontology is easily the less useful and more limited of the four perspectives, and Consequentialism is the best, most useful, most ambitious one.
It is also the most difficult to delimit, to describe, or to predict. And I see that as a good thing.
Why?
Because ethics are a practical need that arises from the conjunction of the abilities to act in ways that affect the well being of sensitive entities and to discern the likely consequences of our own actions and inactions.
Ethical impact is an unavoidable consequence of the coexistence of those two capabilities, while ethical skill is a permanent and fluid challenge.
It is to some degree everyone's duty to continually create, question and improve ethical models to guide our own behavior and goals. It is an individual duty, because we differ on our abilities and therefore on our ethical parameters; it is a dynamic duty, because the possibilities and consequences of our actions and inactions are limited by circunstances beyond our control; and it is a rational, logical duty that must be guided by awareness and reason, because ethics is applied reason.
I have never thought about Deontological Ethics terminology, before. Its interesting but not that interesting learning all about it. Its good to learn new terms which I don't do often enough.It is to some degree everyone's duty to continually create, question and improve ethical models to guide our own behavior and goals. It is an individual duty, because we differ on our abilities and therefore on our ethical parameters; it is a dynamic duty, because the possibilities and consequences of our actions and inactions are limited by circunstances beyond our control; and it is a rational, logical duty that must be guided by awareness and reason, because ethics is applied reason.
I happen to believe that there is such a thing as universal, objective ethics, but I define that as unavoidably informed by several forms of circunstances, including personal inclinations and capabilities. Which apparently means that they are subjective as opposed to objective by the definitions that many people use.
The dispute would be whether or not the Abrahamic doctrine regarding obedience to a higher power contributes or diminishes towards this goal?
There are those (myself included) who think that there is a moral duty even if we do not quite perceive it, and if we can not demonstrate whether it was exerced wisely.
That would be in direct conflict with Biblical law and commands. Slavery, killing people for apostasy and worshiping other gods, disallowing women to "usurp authority" and hold it over a man, the Bible has its laws, rules, and policies, but many of them are not ethical. But for Abrahamic to improve things, they must be willing to acknowledge that the laws and policies given to them by god--things they are expected by him to adhere to--aren't good enough and are ethically diffident.
I must assume that you did not pay attention.I couldn't agree more! In fact well said,, and that's the problem most theist have with secular morality, a mountain of moralistic waffle with no actual decisions being made. Is not in anyway a substitute for one man prepared to make a decision be it right or wrong