Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 09/21/2005 View Tue 09/20/2005 View Mon 09/19/2005 View Sun 09/18/2005 View Sat 09/17/2005 View Fri 09/16/2005 View Thu 09/15/2005
1
2005-09-21 Home Front: Culture Wars
Atheist lobbyist champions "Amoral morality"
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Korora 2005-09-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 "Amoral morality" is called "ethics". And while the dictionary does not distinguish between morality and ethics, in practice, they have a very precise division.

Morality is the body of laws created in "heaven", and subject to interpretation either through priests and other shamen, or directly in individuals. If you violate them, you are either punished by God, or by the priests acting in his behalf.

Ethics are the laws of men, created and enforced by men. If you violate them, you are not punished by the gods, you are punished by men. The United States is founded *not* on morality, but on ethics. Our constitition begins, "We the people...", *not* "God having ordained..."

Ethics can change with a change in the law. Morality can only change with either benign neglect of the law from priests; or if both somebody convinces a bunch of followers that God has changed the rules, and they are powerful enough to *force* the non-followers to accept the new rules.

Otherwise, you get "situational morality", the flip side to the much-despised "situational ethics". The trouble with situational morality is that eventually, priests will have to determine if you have broken the law or not. With situational ethics, it will be a jury of your peers.

And situational morality is far more subjective than situational ethics. If priests say "God forbids you from shaving your cat", but then say, "Ah, but what this means is that you are forbidden from eating tuna fish while wearing leotards"; it is far more convoluted that a judge pondering whether or not your actually shaving your cat is a constitutional act, protected free speech, animal abuse, or just tacky, if legal.
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-09-21 22:19||   2005-09-21 22:19|| Front Page Top

00:00 rjschwarz
23:57 MunkarKat
23:47 .com
23:43 jules 2
23:42 jules 2
23:38 Gleregum Elmaimp9510
23:38 Grunter
23:38 Beau
23:35 LC FOTSGreg
23:31 .com
23:29 Charles
23:28 MunkarKat
23:27 Art
23:25 Slutch Phaviling3447
23:24 Silentbrick
23:21 11A5S
23:14 MunkarKat
23:13 Redneck Jim
23:10 jules 2
23:09 Redneck Jim
23:03 Phil Fraering
23:01 Alaska Paul
22:55 Redneck Jim
22:42 Redneck Jim









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com