I read a book on ethics once...

[Jon]

To broaden my knowledge, I decided to read a book on ethics. There was a particular series of books which had lots of pictures in them and that appealed to me! However, after finishing the book, I felt as though I learned nothing. It seemed that ethics is just dependent on your view.

Did I waste my time? Has anyone here read a book on ethics before and had a similar conclusion?

It seemed like a bunch of waffle to me.

Some may consider that I have black and white binary thinking, but I really do see things on a continuum and try to see all sides of the argument. It is just that this ethics book seemed so wishy washy that it was tantamount to wasting my time!

"Should there be a death penalty? Well, it depends upon your point of view." Yes, I know that!! Tell me something I don't know! Grrrr.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Anyone who has read a Bible has read a book on ethics. Ditto, the Qu'ran. Ditto, any other religious text.

The problem with "ethics" is that if you really enumerated ethical behavior and tried to examine the origin of a specific "ethic" then it comes back down to something that appears in ALL religions. It also appears in the Hippocratic Oath and in the personal credos of every atheist I've ever met online. The exact wording varies, but here it is...

First, do no needless harm to another.

That's it. Everything else of an ethical nature derives from that. You can quibble over "needless" I suppose, and there is the possibility that harming yourself is not really a good idea. There are those who argue over the meaning of "harm" because they mistake their emotional response to something as harm. But ethics will always be based on specific applications of that concept.

The late USA western humorist and philosopher Will Rogers had this variant: "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." In the Bible we have "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." The New Testament contains passages in which Jesus points out that the commandments can be derived from two rules: Love thy God and Love thy neighbor.

All of the "ethical" questions you can imagine SHOULD be reducible to asking whether what you wanted to do was (a) harmful and (b) necessary. The death penalty question comes down to "Which is worse? Killing a known and proved beast in human form, or penning him/her in a cage until s/he dies..." And there, we have the REAL issue. Which act is MORE harmful? Bee and I have already explored that one in another thread here so I won't go over new ground. I'll simply point out that the issue is a matter of relative harm and relative necessity.

 

[Jon]

Those are very good points Doc and I liked that post. In many atheism vs religion debates, religion is argued as the foundation of morality.

"Do no needless harm to another."

I have a few issues with that statement, surprisingly! Consider apostacy, the death penalty for leaving a certain religion. Is it "needed" to kill someone because they do not agree with its ideology, and therefore wish to leave? If those concepts are embedded in the writings and perspectives of a certain God's own words, how is that compatible with Western civilisation? Will Rogers would have a thing or two to say about that.

harming yourself is not really a good idea

In general, yes. There are some exceptions. If Hitler realised he was going to exterminate 6 million Jews, it might have been a good idea to kill himself sooner rather than later. Yet this is where ethics comes in: it depends on your point of view. Good for the Jews, bad for Hitler. So, indeed it is a bad idea from his perspective, yet a good idea from the Jews perspective.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Ah, religion rears its ugly head, pretty much as it HAD to in a discussion of ethics. And YES, religion is ugly.

The concept of apostasy is where some religion claims that it is harmful to the religion for someone to leave a religion behind. Technically, the word apostasy is Greek for "revolt or defection." I believe some of the more famous heresies related to the relationship of the church to people who did not agree with the church's teachings. Consider the Albigensian Heresy that led to a crusade (with the eventual extermination of the followers of Catharism, look it up on Wikipedia.org). Heresy (Greek from the word for "choice") is like apostasy. Someone CHOOSES to be outside the church's mainstream, to leave it (defect from it), so the terms are related.

Religion is not a person, it is an idea. Therefore, it cannot truly be harmed by one person's actions unless that person can show a fallacy in the basic idea. (See also "schism" - but that's another discussion.) Religion is often inculcated, perhaps even deeply ingrained into children by their parents, but ultimately religion is a choice to follow some beliefs without considering whether those beliefs are harmful to others. At least in my mind, it is a case of letting some religious leader decide for you what constitutes ethical behavior. This is the source of religious power and the cause of more than one heresy - that someone could actually make a decision WITHOUT consulting the clergy first.

The church is all about calling down people whose behavior is not consistent with clerical world views. Witness for one example the typical religious stance on homosexuality and same-sex marriage as being harmful to others. This is where I would call BULLSNOT (or similar epithets) because it is only harmful if you can't keep your nose out of someone else's private business. Apostasy falls into the same exact category when viewed in that light. WHO GIVES A FLYING TOOT whether Johnny left the church? His private choice regarding his relationship to God is NOBODY'S business but his. And blasphemy is merely a reflection of someone's opinion as well. In EACH case it SHOULD be taken as reflective of that person's individual choices and nobody else's business.

Religion makes it a point that our relationship with God is personal, but then can't get past the question "Am I my brother's keeper?" This is one case where I go ballistic. Not that there is supposed to be a personal relationship, etc. etc. - but that if it appears MY personal relationship doesn't match someone else's viewpoint, they have to proselytize me. This is usually dangerous from a debate standpoint since I can usually test someone's faith very quickly in any debate.

 

[Jon]

Doc, I didn't really understand what you meant by this paragraph:

Religion makes it a point that our relationship with God is personal, but then can't get past the question "Am I my brother's keeper?" This is one case where I go ballistic. Not that there is supposed to be a personal relationship, etc. etc. - but that if it appears MY personal relationship doesn't match someone else's viewpoint, they have to proselytize me. This is usually dangerous from a debate standpoint since I can usually test someone's faith very quickly in any debate.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In essence, there is an inherent contradiction between the two concepts "personal relationship with God" and attempted proselytization of apostates. The "brother's keeper" concept is that to some degree, religion says "YES" to the question (we ARE our brothers' keepers) but then says the God relationship still has to be personal. I.e. you can make any decision you want as long as you make the one I want you to make. Or like the old phrase I last heard used in the movie Twister in which the competing storm chaser played by Carey Elwes tells his driver, "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." Perhaps that brings my comments into clearer perspective. I am reacting to the EXTREME authoritarian viewpoint that is implied by the concept of apostasy and heresy.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Along the lines of apostasy, I don't know if you folks in the UK see the work being done by Leah Remini to expose the Church of Scientology, which has to be one of the biggest cult scams in modern history. It should be no surprise that Scientologists are trying to sue her pants off because the battle has become too public for them to simply make her disappear. I feel that at some point, this foolish "religion" (actually a tax evasion fraud devised by L Ron Hubbard) will implode. I won't shed a tear for the religion. I might feel sorrow for the victims who come to light when the implosion occurs. But there it is, a modern-day apostasy battle for all to see.

 

[Bee]

I wasn't aware of that - but the Scientologists have their UK HQ about 20 miles from here in East Grinstead

 

[Jon]

I've been to the Scientology HQ. A friend and I used to go on a Sunday sometimes years ago because everything used to be shut on a Sunday in the UK. The attraction was that they had a cafe. There is also that intrigue about the place because it is in a modern castle. They all seemed to stare a lot over there, with their eyes bulging out of their sockets.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Probably from the strain of disbelief that anyone would buy their fakery.