RE: what are we supposed to say again when christians ask us where we get our morality?
July 5, 2014 at 11:10 pm
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2014 at 11:10 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
For Losty-
Sure, moral pragmatism starts with something along the lines of "morality/ethics should be a tool for the [blank]"
A popular choice is common good, common happiness, common wellbeing. generally things that we can look around and see every living thing scrambling for in some form or another. The lowest common denominator of anyone involved in the conversation (and likely to be common even to those who aren't or can't be in the conversation).
Now we need observational evidence of the effect of some behaviour in a human population, an explanation of why it has that effect - so forth. Really vigorous shit.
Armed with those two things, the decision as to whether something is right or wrong is reduced to quantifiable metrics. In the same way that I can;t make 1+2=4 I cant make something that doesn't harm or impede the common good (or whatever pragmatic invocation you like) "wrong" - even if I fucking hate it. Which happens often. I'm not deciding what is "right or wrong", I'm observing what may be right or wrong, if the premise is accepted. Fully aware, of course, that the premise will undergo, and indeed require revision - in the same way that observational and experimental science had to feel out what was wrong with (or could be improved upon in) their underlying premises.
Better?
Sure, moral pragmatism starts with something along the lines of "morality/ethics should be a tool for the [blank]"
A popular choice is common good, common happiness, common wellbeing. generally things that we can look around and see every living thing scrambling for in some form or another. The lowest common denominator of anyone involved in the conversation (and likely to be common even to those who aren't or can't be in the conversation).
Now we need observational evidence of the effect of some behaviour in a human population, an explanation of why it has that effect - so forth. Really vigorous shit.
Armed with those two things, the decision as to whether something is right or wrong is reduced to quantifiable metrics. In the same way that I can;t make 1+2=4 I cant make something that doesn't harm or impede the common good (or whatever pragmatic invocation you like) "wrong" - even if I fucking hate it. Which happens often. I'm not deciding what is "right or wrong", I'm observing what may be right or wrong, if the premise is accepted. Fully aware, of course, that the premise will undergo, and indeed require revision - in the same way that observational and experimental science had to feel out what was wrong with (or could be improved upon in) their underlying premises.
Better?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
