Good to have you back, lee! I asked the question here as a follow-on to a previous question I posed a couple of weeks ago, "Does evil exist?", because I'm trying to sort out and clarify my own thinking on the subject - and I've found the answers and discussions here very helpful in that regard.
One of the things I wonder about is the extent to which we can speak of morality beyond (or deeper than) societal conventions and reward/ punishment schemata. In many areas, I've noticed a tendency to limit morality to the "private" context. I saw a series of interviews with young bankers in Frankfurt last week asked about their attitude to a number of clever "bears", who apparently saw the financial crisis coming, sold short, and made major profits as a result. The general view expressed was admiration for people who were canny enough to read the signs right and play the system accordingly. None of them even seemed to consider that such people also had the option to make their viewpoints known, cry warning and maybe do something about averting something generally seen as very damaging for many millions of people. Moral blindness? Or just the result of shutting morality out of all kinds of areas which pertain to life? Or a viewpoint that those who allow their actions to be influenced by moral perspectives are just mugs? Many people seem to have no problems with a view of society where it's dog eat dog and so, buddy, you'd better strengthen your jaws and sharpen your teeth! Does the way we organise society have an anaesthesising electro-magnetic effect on the moral compasses you refer to? Francis On 6 Apr., 13:12, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Everybody, I'm back from two moths of jury duty and ready to get my > teeth into further arguing! > > Hey Fran, > > Are you asking the wrong question here? Morality? Well we all have > that to some degree or other don't we, perhaps the question should be > why are we moral? > > Theist and Atheist alike, we mostly have the same moral compass, I'll > put it down to it all being part and parcel of what sort of a creature > mankind is. God or no God, morality just comes as part of being > human. > > On 3 Apr, 10:30, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In Dostoevsty’s novel, “Crime and Punishment”, Raskolnikov commits > > murder with the justification, “If God doesn’t exist, then anything is > > permissible.” Dostoevsky, who advocated a slavophile Christianity, > > uses the novel to argue that rationalist atheism leads to nihilism and > > chaos and that a belief in a redeeming God is the only solid basis for > > human life. > > > The theistic argument for an ultimate basis for morality is, of > > course, easy; morality is divinely deemed, proscribed, part of the > > template of existence. It gives answers to the question, “why be > > moral?” on different levels; because God has ordained it, because it > > is a God-created part of human nature, because God will punish you if > > you aren’t and reward you if you are. > > > Where can atheists find an answer to the question; why be moral? More > > practically, perhaps, if we accept secular models for organising > > society (and this is the basis of western societies), where do we find > > arguments in favour of behaving morally? In the wake of the financial > > collapse, many commentators have identified a lack of moral > > sensibility on the part of those managing and playing the markets as > > one of the underlying problems leading to the collapse. Is the basis > > of law and regulation merely deterrent; the fear of the consequences > > of being caught? > > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
