In 1985 I had a chance to take a doctoral-level class with this guy:
Robert Audi Professor of Philosophy and David E. Gallo Professor of Business
Ethics Mailing Address:
Department of Philosophy
University of Notre Dame
100 Malloy Hall
Notre Dame, IN 46556 Education:
Ph.D., University of Michigan Areas of Interest:
Ethics, Political Philosophy, Epistemology, Religious Epistemology, Philosophy
of Mind and Action.
Now Bob is arguably one of the leading analytic philosophers specializing
in ethics in the world today. Bob is very sincere and, needless to say, very
smart. And on a personal level he appears to me a truly fantastic human being.
But when he found out I was a close student of John Findlay Findlay defended
reincarnation in his 1966-67 Gifford Lectures The Transcendence of the Cave
(and, for a couple of days, taught at M.I.U. in 1979) Bob, qua the Real
Christian he really is, became visibly upset: Well, the transmigration theory
of the soul from Plato, thats a dangerous view. He even seemed concerned for
my eternal welfare if I continued believing it. Now my point here is: even
the very best philosophical-ethical minds (and Bob is certainly among them)
probably have a few more go rounds to go on this earth before they finally get
to get away. So How Now Ethics? Hows about this for a view: to live your
final lifetime is a way you dont have to come back.
How Now? By wandering around drunk in Fairfield? Maybe (but dont fall down
and hit your head when its cold!) By having sex with 19 year old virgins
while calling yourself a Great Seer? Sounds like rock-star stuff to me. But
then again - what does it all mean? Now that seems to me to be a most very
basic question we keep bringing to this forum everyday. And asking that
question is the philosophical discipline of ethics.
qntmpkt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --Ethics, as opposed to morals, can
be "explained", as being
independent of, and not needing, religion; since it's obvious that
ethical and largely athiestic countries do quite well without religion.
The explanation? ethics are hardwired in DNA, and animals have a
rudimentary capacity for ethical behavior. Then couple the DNA with
game theory and we have a plausible hypothesis for the origins of
ethics, but without the need for moral or religious underpinnings.
The above viewpoint is consistent with MMY's Natural Law and the
concept of Dharma; but various "experts" have only scratched the
surface of possible discourses on the subject.
Sakyamuni Buddha and his successors seemed to know more than most.
- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "george_deforest"
> <george.deforest@> wrote:
> >
> > > Jonathan Chadwick wrote:
> > >
> > > One interesting "comprehensive" philosophical-ethical view
> > > that is making a comeback these days (mostly in Catholic circles,
> > > but not exclusively so) is "natural law theory."
> > > Believe it or not, M.'s version is both deeper and better
> > > (or at least less intellectualistic) than all of that.
> > > In any event, we certainly do not teach ethics in K-12 here.
> >
> > Catholic Natural Law theory overview:
> >
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#Contemporary_Catholic_Understan\
> > ding
> >
>
> Per excerpts below, Aquinas was interesting, parallel in some ways to
> logic and frameworks found in the TMO worldview.
>
> Aquinas borrowed heavily from Greeks and other traditions. I have a
> hard time hearing some of aquinas' words through the mouth of Jesus.
> The height of Greeks philosophy preceeded Christ. If Christ wanted to
> incorporate such into his message, he could have.
>
> From this arises the question about the pure message of christ vs
> centuries of overlays from other philosophies, moderated and absorbed
> into christianity and Aquinas oriented Catholicism.
>
> Hinduism seems to thrive and live the ideal that there is no one
> founder, and spiritual knowledge will always be a blend of past
> phrophets and seers. But christianity, by its name, implies "the
> teachings of christ" not "a teaching began by christ and moderated,
> shifted, repackaged, blended, changed, parts thrown away, and updated
> with many other traditions, thinkers, seers, stumbling neer-do-wells
> and hoodlums."
>
> In TMO I see both currents -- lots of blending of various currents of
> Hinduism, with modern thought and knowledge. On the other hand, an
> insistance that on pure vedic teaching is "worthy".
>
>
>
>
> Excerpts on Aquinas -- the key thinker in Catholic Natural Law theory
> ----------------------------
> From the above article.
>
> To know what is right, one must use one's reason and apply it to
> Aquinas' precepts. The most important is the primary precept, self
> preservation. There are also four subsidiary precepts: procreation,
> education of children, living in society, and worshipping God
> (veneration).
>
> -------
> Aquinas viewed theology, or the sacred doctrine, as a science, the raw
> material data of which consists of written scripture and the tradition
> of the church. These sources of data were produced by the
> self-revelation of God to individuals and groups of people throughout
> history. Faith and reason, while distinct but related, are the two
> primary tools for processing the data of theology. Aquinas believed
> both were necessary - or, rather, that the confluence of both was
> necessary - for one to obtain true knowledge of God. Aquinas blended
> Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine by suggesting that rational
> thinking and the study of nature, like revelation, were valid ways to
> understand God. According to Aquinas, God reveals himself through
> nature, so to study nature is to study God. The ultimate goals of
> theology, in Aquinas' mind, are to use reason to grasp the truth about
> God and to experience salvation through that truth.
>
> ---
> Aquinas denied that human beings have any duty of charity to animals
> because they are not persons. Otherwise, it would be unlawful to use
> them for food. But this does not give us license to be cruel to them,
> for "cruel habits might carry over into our treatment of human
> beings."[17]
> ---
> [Substitute God for "Being" or Brahman]
>
> Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly
> called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him
> to propose five positive statements about the divine qualities:[18]
>
> 1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and
> soul, or matter and form.
> 2. God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished
> from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.
> 3. God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that
> created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally
> limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size
> and infinity of number.
> 4. God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's
> essence and character.
> 5. God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity
> of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In
> Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is
> necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."
>
> In this approach, he is following, among others, the Jewish
> philosopher Maimonides.[19]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
>
> -----------
> The Quinquae viae, or Five Ways, are five proofs of the existence of
> God summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae. These
> proofs take the form of philosophical arguments:
>
> 1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
> * Some things are moved.
> * Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
> * An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
> * Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion
> proceeds.
> 2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
> * Some things are caused.
> * Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
> * An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
> * Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused
> things.
> 3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
> * Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist.
> Such things are called contingent beings.
> * It is impossible for everything in the universe to be
> contingent.
> * Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence
> is not contingent on any other being(s).
> 4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
> * Various perfections may be found in varying degrees
> throughout the universe.
> * These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the
> perfections themselves.
> 5. The argument of design (ex fine).
> * All designed things have a designer.
> * The universe is designed.
> * Therefore, the universe has a designer.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae
>
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
