Hi Steve, > >>> Platt, you asked: > >>> > >>> All of which raises the question: Is Christian morality also an > >>> intellectual level morality? -- > >> > Steve: > >> If what you are talking about the Golden Rule, aka the ethics of > >> reciprocity I would agree. Why would anyone take me seriously if I do > >> to them what I say that I don't want done to me? This is an exteremly > >> rational approach to morality. In fact, virtually every > >> culture/religion has developed it's own articulation of this moral > >> strategy. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
> > Platt: > > The Golden Rule takes many forms and has been, as you say, found in > one > > form another in almost every culture. In fact, I recall some > Darwinists > > saying the "ethics of reciprocity" is an inherited trait since some > > higher > > animals have been observed to behave that way, e.g, "You scratch my > > back > > and I'll scratch yours." Whether we can call that "rational" is an > open > > question. Perhaps "expedient" would be more accurate. > Steve: > I brought up the ethics of reciprocity because I could not think of > what else you could be thinking of in saying that Christian morality > may be intellectual. If you don't see the Golden Rule as rational, what > else about Christian morality could be thought of as intellectual? Well, that's the question isn't it? Secular humanists appear to adopt many Christian ideals in their Godless worldview such as caring, sharing, compassion, toleration, etc. They claim to arrive at their ethical values rationally if not scientifically, i.e., intellectually. But as we know, Pirsig takes a rather dim view of an SOM-based ethics. > Steve: > >> However, Christians generally view morality as trying not to anger > >> their god rather than in terms of trying to find ways of promoting > >> human flourishing or promoting the evolution of static patterns > toward > >> dynamic quality. So I would say that Christian ethics may often be > >> consistent with an intellectual approach to morality, but it is based > >> on authority, a social pattern, rather than intellect. > > Platt: > > Good point about authority being a social pattern. As a practical > > matter, I > > wonder if moral guidelines aren't more efficacious when based on > > accountability to the authority of God rather than rely on the > > authority of > > some SOM intellectual atheist who says that's what nice people do. > > Steve: > I think you'd have a hard time finding any data supporting the > hypothesis that believers are better behaved than atheists even by > believer's moral standards regarding crime, teenage pregnancy, child > molestation, etc. In fact, countries that are the most atheistic tend > to have the lowest crime rates, highest literacy rates, least poverty, > etc. I simply refer to communism, a secular tyranny which since the Enlightenment has proved itself by far the most lethal, oppressive, dehumanizing force on earth. > It looks like teaching children to care about other people can work at > least as well as teaching kids to fear invisible gods. Yes, you're obviously right about that. But "caring about other people" is Christian doctrine is it not? Regards, Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
