Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Non-religious Morality

roachboy · 10-14-2007, 10:29 AM

the negative post:

the idea that religion is required to ground ethics follows from the notion of original sin--if you assume that human beings are degenerate, fallen, etc. a priori, then you can't rely on them to fashion adquate ethical systems

(this conclusion is contained in the premise--it is nothing more than an elaboration of the notion of original sin, a consequence of it)

so it follows that some sort of transcendent rule-set is required. and since the notion of transcendence is defined in the same terms, by the same religious frame that defines original sin, it follows that a transcendent rule-set can only come from god.

it's circular.
outside a christian framework, this argument says nothing.
you find versions of the same assumptions in each of the main monotheistic religions.
so it follows that the assumption that there should be a transcendent rule-set means nothing outside these traditions.

the assumption that these rules must exist in this way to be stable is a self-evident argument for submission to social control. social control exercised by particular institutions, arranged in a particular manner. a clear, pyramidal social hierarchy. us little people do not need to be concerned too much about how to live because the Important Big Folk at the top of the Great Chain of Social Being do that for us. our role is to submit.

and these arguments are routine in texts--religious and philosophical---that fret about the need to ground ethics.

it's funny how this works---you find groups of people panicking because they understand groups of people to be incapable of defining adequate limits to their own actions. so these groups set about comparative "analyses" of ethical systems in order to develop sets of meta-rules that appear in all systems. these then get set up as transcendent. you can watch this tiresome ritual unfold in areas like bidness ethics, which is only worth mentioning because it is a product of the 1970s and so is one of the areas that you can look at to find a repeat of this procedure, a rehearsal of these assumptions.

this is already too long.
this is a negative post.

10-14-2007, 10:29 AM	#92 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the negative post: the idea that religion is required to ground ethics follows from the notion of original sin--if you assume that human beings are degenerate, fallen, etc. a priori, then you can't rely on them to fashion adquate ethical systems (this conclusion is contained in the premise--it is nothing more than an elaboration of the notion of original sin, a consequence of it) so it follows that some sort of transcendent rule-set is required. and since the notion of transcendence is defined in the same terms, by the same religious frame that defines original sin, it follows that a transcendent rule-set can only come from god. it's circular. outside a christian framework, this argument says nothing. you find versions of the same assumptions in each of the main monotheistic religions. so it follows that the assumption that there should be a transcendent rule-set means nothing outside these traditions. the assumption that these rules must exist in this way to be stable is a self-evident argument for submission to social control. social control exercised by particular institutions, arranged in a particular manner. a clear, pyramidal social hierarchy. us little people do not need to be concerned too much about how to live because the Important Big Folk at the top of the Great Chain of Social Being do that for us. our role is to submit. and these arguments are routine in texts--religious and philosophical---that fret about the need to ground ethics. it's funny how this works---you find groups of people panicking because they understand groups of people to be incapable of defining adequate limits to their own actions. so these groups set about comparative "analyses" of ethical systems in order to develop sets of meta-rules that appear in all systems. these then get set up as transcendent. you can watch this tiresome ritual unfold in areas like bidness ethics, which is only worth mentioning because it is a product of the 1970s and so is one of the areas that you can look at to find a repeat of this procedure, a rehearsal of these assumptions. this is already too long. this is a negative post. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-14-2007 at 10:34 AM..