A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the intent to outline what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's professor seems unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate than the Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less cripples morality, both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The weakness involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle hardly shows moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to protect themselves at the expense of others. The best we can hope for is some kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral because so many people cling to religious means to suppose others immoral on grounds like active homosexuality and most varieties of fornication. We might think of ridding ourselves of morality and ethics and get on with doing our best in difficult situations that need decision.
On Aug 25, 5:08 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged. > > On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other way around! > > > To dictionary.com! > > > On Aug 25, 2:03 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Not sure i agree or fully understand your distinctions, Lee; you're > > > certainly right that "ethics" and "morality" are not "opposing labels > > > of the same thing", though. > > > > To be brief, in my opinion, a thought or action is "ethical" or > > > otherwise if it meets my standard of conduct; a thought or action is > > > "moral" if it meets a predetermined and prescribed (by ordination, > > > coordination, or cognition) system of "human" values. It is this > > > latter category of behavioural conditioning that Marks "deconstructs" > > > so eloquently in his article. > > > > Or so it seems to me, i may be wrong. > > > > On Aug 25, 9:51 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ethics vs Morality as opposing lables for the same thing? > > > > > That is not how I understand the two terms myself. > > > > > Ethics is concerned with the correct course of action, both as > > > > individuals and on a larger scale, whilst morality is an individuals > > > > understanding of what is correct or incorrect. > > > > > That is I may have a moral system that agrees or disagree with my > > > > socities ethical values. > > > > > Perhaps then my issues are merely semantic, but I do not belive that > > > > any human can be berift of a morality. That is to say a personal > > > > understanding or what is right or wrong. > > > > > When he talks about his dislike of animal cruety, he says that this is > > > > no longer a question of morality but one of desire. Excuse me for > > > > mentioning Ayn Rand now, but she would have it that our greatest > > > > moral porpouse is our own happiness. This sure looks like moralyity > > > > equated with our desires here. > > > > > On Aug 25, 7:42 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > He's a very lucid thinker. > > > > > > There is a basis, some basis, to questions of morality (though i > > > > > prefer the word "ethics" personally, so perhaps i'm closer to Marks > > > > > than i might realise). A deconstructionist approach might lead one > > > > > inexorably towards "biological value". If i recall (it was quite a > > > > > while ago now), Matt Ridley presents this approach in his book "The > > > > > Origins Of Virtue". > > > > > > On Aug 22, 2:59 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > By Joel Marks- plus reader comments > > > > > > >http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/confessions-of-an-ex-...- > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
