chrism@shark.UUCP (06/02/84)
I'd like to try to answer one of Bob Brown's questions: Here goes, wish me luck: <Humanist documents and literature I have read extol the virtues <of individual freedom of choice and situational ethics that <promote the idea that you determine what is right for you <on a case by case basis. < Is there a reference point in this system that < will prevent the tendency to drift toward anarchy < when you and I and a zillion other folks are doing < our situational ethics number on a grand scale ? Loaded question. You encode in it the presumption that humans tend to anarchy when they do not have a common ethical reference point. That is an assumption that may or may not be valid. Anyway, "anarchy" to you may be freedom and the good-life to me. I knew a Soviet student once who was doing some study in our country. To him our society was "anarchic" because all actions and political processes weren''t tightly controlled. Therefore, by reasoning extrapolated from your assumption, the Soviet system is superior to ours because it controls anarchy better. You see my point, I trust. Likewise, I have known Muslims who had similar "anarchic" opinions on our society because our woman don't wear chadors and we all don't believe Muhammed was the Seal of the Prophet. A question of perspective. What is the alternate to case-by-case ethics? I argue that ethics are never absolute; they always are bent and molded by that bothersome thing called reality. 'Thou shalt not kill'. Okay, what happens if I must kill to protect a loved one's life? Or, what if I'm in a war and must kill an enemy? (Some poor slob like me with a family and loved ones). And so on and so forth. Clearly, any ethical system must be moderated by reality on a case-by-case basis to at least SOME extent. Its simply a question of degree. Anyway, if religious-based ethical systems are so perfect and absolute, how do you account for the evolution they have gone through over the centuries? Even in the same time frame, ethical systems vary wildly. Look at Christians in Korea, Kenya, Poland and Canada. Their ethical structures are often very different as a result of history and social environment. There is no such thing as God-given ethics, unless God is a situational ethics fan himself. So with that background, I'll answer your question: No, humanism can not necessarily provide a commom and absolute reference point. But neither can any other system. However, humanism can provide an ethical standard that seeks to maximize human potentials and happiness. You may ask: why should man deify himself to the point where he defines his own moral/ethical structure? I would answer that you are locked into this deity mind-set; why should it take a deity to do this job? Again, another unspoken assumption. Anyway, humanists believe that religionists made up this God-given ethical framework to begin with - you were the guys who first deified yourselves, no us. Humanists are simply more open about their processes and do not attribute their conclusions to some higher power. Chris Minson
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (06/04/84)
Chris Minson,
One picayune point in your response ( Hebrew Scholar Alert !!)
The commandment you quoted is rendered in the Hebrew as:
"You shall do no murder." not "You shall not kill."
It is not the act of taking life itself that is abhorrent (sp?)
in the Judaeo-Christian system but whether it is deserved or not.
Murder (i.e. the shedding of innocent blood) has always been among
the most heinous offenses in the system. If "You shall not kill"
was the proper understanding then capital punishment would not
have had any place in the Old Testament practices.
Bob Brown {...clyde!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784mwm@ea.UUCP (06/08/84)
#R:akgua:-80500:ea:11300026:000:850
ea!mwm Jun 8 12:51:00 1984
/***** ea:net.religion / akgua!rjb / 9:06 am Jun 5, 1984 */
It is not the act of taking life itself that is abhorrent (sp?)
in the Judaeo-Christian system but whether it is deserved or not.
Murder (i.e. the shedding of innocent blood) has always been among
the most heinous offenses in the system.
Bob Brown {...clyde!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784
/* ---------- */
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Since we're all sinners (or so I've been told), none of us are innocent.
Hence, you can't commit murder, all you can do is over-punish someone.
That's one of the problems with the bible: it makes nice, grand statements
that we should all follow ("commit no murder", "do not steal", etc.), but
doesn't bother defining the hard terms: murder, steal, etc.
<mike