That article made me want to know: how does this author define morality? I went searchin' for a definition, and came across this article (hopefully we don't end up with article bloat), and here goes...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm This article makes a nice distinction between the principles of morality and the science of ethics. It is an interesting argument: two people's moral bases (what they consider good and bad) could be identical, but their ethical standards (what they consider right and wrong) could be completely different. And then religion comes into the mix... Worth a read. M -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:57 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Bad Faith - TNR Article I was going along agreeing with everything this article had to say until: "Many cultural conservatives equate secularism with relativism, and they genuinely believe that religion is the only source of morality. I think that's theoretically simplistic and empirically absurd--I doubt atheists and agnostics lie, cheat, steal, or fly airplanes into skyscrapers any more than anyone else." Since the writer hedges his accusations against "cultural conservatives," (saying "many" instead of "all"), it's hard to argue that point, though I think it's a bit of a generalization. However, when he says: "I doubt atheists and agnostics lie, cheat, steal, or fly airplanes into skyscrapers any more than anyone else. ...," he is not arguing that atheists believe in morality. At best he's saying that most atheists behave in a manner consistent with generally accepted moral and ethical codes. Many, many people whom I've debated moral relativism with have often times said, "I don't lie or cheat or steal, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be morally permissible for another person to lie, cheat or steal." A person can avow moral relativism while still maintaining a moral code. It is also a logical jump to conclude: Person A doesn't say statement X, therefore that person believes proposition Y. Silence by Bush, for example, on the morality of atheists doesn't mean he doesn't believe atheists are moral. He may believe that, but it's also possible that the question has never occurred to him. It might be nice if he used language more like Tony Blair's, but to condemn him for his silence is as disingenuous as putting words in his mouth. Having gone out on that precipice, the author does save himself at the end by correcting the flaw of an actual Bush statement and drawing an accurate conclusion, but this still doesn't mean the writer hasn't unfairly labeled Bush as a person who views atheists as immoral. Bush could very well believe that many atheists, if not all, are moral, because they are human. Since most conservatives believe that basic morals are innate, then no conservative would be surprised at finding a moral atheist. Bush could very well believe that moral teachings, as he's praised, do not teach morality so much as it refines the culture's moral code and acts as a counter balance to those who would teach moral relativism. The general thrust of the author's article is laudable. Our elected and appointed officials statements on faith should be examined and questioned, but I quibble with some of his logic. H. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 4:09 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Bad Faith - TNR Article The New Republic has an interesting article on religion and some thoughts on Bush/Ashcroft statements. http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020325&s=trb032502 jon ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
