I knew we were in deep trouble when some prominent feminist writer proclaimed that science has made us men a burdensome inconvenience; i took that very personally indeed! :)
OT? NT? K? On Aug 25, 11:17 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Just finished reading a short story, "Aristotle and the Hired Thugs" > by Herbert Gold- in an anthology of Jewish writers from the "60's. > (When witers knew how to write.) > > It's not only religion that screws up morality. There's ethnic > tensions and hatreds. Bad blood. Women's groups can be deadly- many a > murdered reputation over those luncheons and dinner parties! > > I figure the OT is history and the NT is fiction and the K is fantasy. > > On Aug 25, 1:41 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Very funny reference to Marks and the Greek philosophers :) > > > I do enjoy your clarity of cynicism, archytas. > > > I think you make the distinction between personal and professional > > ethics very well. > > > I fully empathise with your criticism of the achilles heel of > > "morality"; to construct a sense of identity built on "exclusion" is > > to give free rein to the most socially dysfunctional elements of base > > human nature; myopic at best, self harming at worst, in my opinion. > > > But rid ourselves of morality and/or personal ethics, and by what > > standard shall we judge our actions and decisions? > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
