Quote:
Originally posted by asaris
Could you perhaps clarify exactly what it is you are objecting to?
|
yes -
Quote:
Originally posted by StormBerlin
I'm sorry you feel my question is absurd. I give you my permission not to answer any more of them.
Alrighty guys, this question had a part in it about God. If you don't believe in God, then don't answer the question.
|
I wasn't complaining about what you had said. I did not quote you.
I can tell you specifically what I was complaining about
:
I had said that "I think the thing about this thread that is absurd to me is that it hinges on the belief of an absolute morality, and that everyone knows what that is," because we have no access to what a unified God thinks or would think. To talk about "purity" and what a God would want having some sort of relationship is a hard leap for me to make. There are many different Gods and interpretations of Gods and as many definitions of what those things are that would be the "most good".
I just don't think there is a purity standard, and certainly a teleological one.
There are other problems too, such as the increasing dependency created by globalization and the shared guilt for the problems happening around the world. We talk about intentions, but what about unintentially doing things that contribute to a destructive, oppressive system? Is it ok to buy a pair of pants on sale at the Gap knowing that those pants were manufactured in a "Free Trade Zone" on the coast of Kingston, Jaimaica by ethnic Chinese-Filipinos who were flown in by the companies to undercut the wage expectations of the local Jaimaicans that are barely getting by? Certainly, there is just so much going on the in the world now that is so complicated that it is very difficult to make a choice that isn't clouded by the system we live in.
It is also strange to me that some of the examples used focus on material wealth. Is what is good dependent on economies and the collective value placed on the meaning of ownership?
Forgetting God... since I can't speak for God and have no access to what a God would or wouldn't want, if anything... I would personally define a pure action as an action of specific sort of humanitarian rebellion. Example: Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau's civil disobedience have, to me, the purest kind of intention possible. To act against injustice without any material benefit to you appeals to my sense of humanity. At the same time, I'm sure Thoreau and King felt an intense need to go through with this acts for a sense of personal consistency with their ethics and morals.
That is the "most good" kind of action, I can think of.