Saturday, December 15, 2012
Rape and other wrongs
With our evolved moral sense, we see the harm due to rape and such. This should be an unarguable matter globally: no ethical nor sociological reletavism should overwhelm this view.
Innocent rape is not innocent, as never should anyone violate another's right no matter how indisposed the other is.
Whole societies perforce should proclaim that never is rape innocent!
People do have the duty to lie to protect the innocent. We would see the harmful consequences otherwise. The duty to protect the innocent overrides the duty to tell the truth in this case.
With food kitchens and food stamps, people no longer should have to steal food.
People have to use their judgments wisely in doing morality. As shown, it reflects the context. It is not thus absolute always. It is objective in that how we see the consequences of how people get harmed by rape,etc. That is, like science, it is inter-subjective and debatable.
Rape itself is not debatable,but the fitting punishment is.
People have to use their considered judgments as against their mere tastes and whims. People can feel repugnant at homosexuality, but their judgment should have them be tolerant of it.
How might we further society morally?
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Our moral sense
We humans have an evolved moral sense that we ever need to refine. Our received moral sentiments implore us to implement ways to ensure rights for all,disregarding any tastes and whims. That sentiment drives us to be more moral than those of the ages of faith.What dastardly deprecations of duplicity in sentiment do theists rail for God as the ontological ground of morality when theirs failed to be moral itself!
And what general divine command for morality would do anyway when as the Euthyphro teaches either He depends on morality or else He could make the immoral moral. And the same dilemma applies when theists then try to gainsay this with why, His nature is good by definition:is it good due to an outside source or does He arbitrarily make it good, and despite Aquinas, that definition begs the question of his very nature.
God speaks with a forked tongue-all those different sects clamoring differently about morality!
To announce that He is the prime mover behind this sense also begs the question. Evolution gave it to us. We ever have to use our reason to further its implications.
Our very humanity grounds ontologically our morality!
And by meaningfull discussions can we develop that planetrary ethic for which the late,gat Paul Kurtz exhorted us to develop: we can have an objective,realist morality!
And what general divine command for morality would do anyway when as the Euthyphro teaches either He depends on morality or else He could make the immoral moral. And the same dilemma applies when theists then try to gainsay this with why, His nature is good by definition:is it good due to an outside source or does He arbitrarily make it good, and despite Aquinas, that definition begs the question of his very nature.
God speaks with a forked tongue-all those different sects clamoring differently about morality!
To announce that He is the prime mover behind this sense also begs the question. Evolution gave it to us. We ever have to use our reason to further its implications.
Our very humanity grounds ontologically our morality!
And by meaningfull discussions can we develop that planetrary ethic for which the late,gat Paul Kurtz exhorted us to develop: we can have an objective,realist morality!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)