We should take the Moral Highground

[mediamogul]

A couple of points: First I would seperate the idea of "ethics" from the idea of individual "ethics" in practice.

Intresting that you say that, because I think the same way. For me transcendent values serve more as a philisophical background. It is one thing to believe in an ultimate good and quite another figuring out what it is.

Human nature and rationality can provide us with a basis for ethics external to individual wrong beliefs.

In principle I agree with you. The only difference is this. I believe that aligning our selves more closely with our humanity and our rationality more completely reflects divine aspects. Genkaus and I are having a long and involved conversation about this and he's helping me to use my words more precisely. So my idea is a work in progress and not something I am yet prepared to defend in a coherent way.

Ethics based upon sentience (a being's ability to suffer) provides a standard for human conduct. Suffering is self-defined as a state that human beings seek to avoid and conversely happiness is a state that humans seek and value. Individual conceptions of happiness and suffering exist and a person is free to pursue then insofar as they do not treat another person as a means to their end (happiness), cause unwarranted suffering, or impinge upon another person's reasonable pursuit of happiness.

I do believe you are on to something. It needs to be fleshed out a bit more, but overall it's a good approach. It's the last part (about not impinging on others) that I find a bit shakey.

This is the condensed version. I wrote many a term paper during my college years in my struggle with ethics. I do see your point that one could argue that the nature of humans is a case of essence preceding existence (the inverse of existentialism) in that man's nature was preconcieved in the "mind of god" and thus by aligning our morality with human nature one is as a byproduct obeying "god's law". It's an interesting concept but not one I subscribe to because I am in the existentialist camp of thinking that existence precedes essence. Humans exist and then as a result their nature is defined. I must admit I like your line of argument MUCH more than I like the divine command theory.

Admittedly when we start talking of impinging on another's reasonable expectation of happiness is where it gets a bit more tricky. It's more like their reasonable ability to pursue happiness, as in one can never garuanty another's happiness only their right to pursue it, which is well within the scope of ethics and rights theory. This obviously must be amended in the case of those who themselves violate other's rights or cause suffering. their rights change when they do that in order for society and individuals to protect themselves from such people.