RE: (LONG) "I Don't Know" as a Good Answer in Ethics
November 21, 2017 at 1:28 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2017 at 1:32 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(November 21, 2017 at 12:58 pm)alpha male Wrote: No offense, but when you compare I don't know to I'm certain I should strangle my daughter, you don't come across as having thought things through so deeply. That seemed pretty cheap.
It is actually Nuran Halitogullari's father who failed to think of things so deeply. My whole point was to endorse "I don't know" as a good position to have (in the same way Dawkins doesn't know how life came from non-life, yet he still has his head on straight concerning biology).
Since I have introduced myself to you via a scathing indictment of scriptural literalism, it may not be clear to you that I have a deep respect for Christians and their beliefs. For example, Christians don't murder their children because they were raped. At the risk of you accusing me of absolutism again, I'd like to say that this is something I like about Christians. I also think that the Sermon on the Mount hits some ethical high notes, and (with a few edits here and there) might even be considered a pretty powerful ethical argument. Leo Tolstoy has some really cool things to say on the subject.
Anyway, with those pleasantries out of the way, let me ask you: Do you think it is possible that the bible gets ethics wrong in places?
(November 21, 2017 at 11:27 am)Khemikal Wrote: Having been (and still being) contemporaneous ethical theories the proponents of both have been offering criticism of the other and the end product is that folks in both camps seem to have realized that, unmodifed, neither of their ethical theories adequately expressed the truth they sought to systematically justify, leading to a sort of ethical syncretism by which any modern concept of either is peppered with the borrowed and normalized concepts of the other. Modesty over indulgence in pleasure seeking is a good example of that. The reason that epicureanism was such a compelling opposing theory to stoicism is that it incorporated what some might call the better parts of stoicism, but in a way that coherently advocated for the ends of goals of hedonism. In addition, it wasn't hamstrung by irrational ethical concepts like "natural law" or "natures plan"...present in zenos stoicism and in christian mythology. In epicurean hedonism..."natures plan" can be a bad thing, from an ethical point of view.
You have some interesting thoughts on the matter. I was letting them percolate as I was squabbling with the squirrel. So let me ask, do you see Epicurean hedonism (or hedonism in general) as an appealing theory?
