[split] Are Questions About God Important?

[h4ym4n]

[FrustratedFool]

Ethics are strange from my POV. Since I don't believe in moral realism, ethical discussions are just complex arguments over feelings or preferences etc.

[no one]

If I subscribe to conclusion, it is ethically sound. If not, then said idea is disgracefully corrupt.

[FrustratedFool]

Yes. 'Ethically sound', 'good' etc just translate to 'I strongly approve'

[Confused-by-christianity]

What I don't, and never will, understand, is why you, and people like you, expect us to take your claims about your imaginary friend seriously. Especially when all you can offer in evidence of your exceptional claims is allegory, wild assertions, and ancient texts of dubious (at best) historicity.

I dont expect that. After about 2 pages i changed my mind and thought this is best thought of as a laugh - friendly banter.

For me, it's friendly banter, for you probably not so friendly - and no - im genuinely not trolling.

I'll probably disappear soon enough anyway - so no worries ;-)

[Belacqua]

Yes.  'Ethically sound', 'good' etc just translate to 'I strongly approve'

There's an older way to approach ethics, which makes more sense to me. @SimpleCaveman summarized it earlier in this thread:

Because what is good and bad for human beings is determined by the ends set for us by nature. Any behavior that facilitates the achievement of our natural ends is considered good. If it frustrates those ends, then it is considered bad. For example, the way we were created/evolved says that drinking water is a good because it preserves our life. Procreation and rearing kittens are good for cats because they preserve the species. 

In this approach, what is ethical is what promotes human flourishing. To some extent, this is not a matter of preference -- we need breathable air and drinkable water. Certain things are common enough to all humans that we can probably agree on some other basic things. For example, people flourish better if they learn a language. 

So it's ethical to promote a society which allows us to be healthy and engage our natural human propensities for language, curiosity, etc. And it's unethical to work against these. This leaves lots of room for debate as to how deep human nature runs. Is it human nature to be greedy, as the capitalists claim, or could we all be more generous if society encouraged it? 

https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-N..._ap_sc_dsk

Obviously that leaves a lot of things undefined, and that's where ethical debate comes in. Earlier generations might well have said that everyone needs a traditional family unit to flourish, and this is under discussion today. We live in changing times. And of course there are questions about what "flourishing" consists of. Some will say this requires having lots of money. Others will focus on creativity.

But it gives us a kind of standard against which to judge: Given X situation, will it help people to flourish or not? 

I learned this approach from Dante, because it's the standard Catholic view. Sin, for Dante, is not the breaking of arbitrary laws, but a stubborn refusal to pursue our proper ends. His views translate easily into modern language, where instead of sin we would talk about unhealthy obsessions, addictions, or neuroses. But even if we differ from Dante considerably in what we consider the aims to be, the general framework still makes sense to me.

[FrustratedFool]

This simply pushes the question back: why should I care about human flourishing?

The only answer is because I care for my own interest - so just cut out the middle-man and ask what do I prefer. Hence ethics is just my personal preference. It just so happens that I prefer, generally, human flourishing for my own best interest (whether practical or emotional).

Ethics boils down to preference and then expediency (what best accomplishes my desires). Anything else is pointless addition or rhetoric.

[Belacqua]

This simply pushes the question back: why should I care about human flourishing?

The only answer is because I care for my own interest - so just cut out the middle-man and ask what do I prefer.  Hence ethics is just my personal preference.  It just so happens that I prefer, generally, human flourishing for my own best interest (whether practical or emotional).

Ethics boils down to preference and then expediency (what best accomplishes my desires).  Anything else is pointless addition or rhetoric.

Well, sure. There is no way to prove, logically or empirically, that it's better to flourish than not. So in that sense it's a preference. 

You can't prove that it's better to be healthy. You can't prove that it's bad to chop the arms off of babies for fun. But there is some basic level at which we'd question the sanity of people who don't have that preference.

But yeah: ethics isn't a science and it isn't provable. So I could agree that it's a very serious discussion of what we do and should prefer.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's amazing to me that people can be so terrified by some "trap" for their gods that they refuse to speak or even acknowledge their own views on import and meaning, even when those views are completely obvious to anyone involved...and even when those views are shared by their questioner.  

I guess gods a real fuckup.  As long as you don't say what you wrongthink he can't tell the difference between you and a blasphemous heathen bound right for hell.

I wouldn't want to be in the position of defending the Biblical god's behavior, either.

[no one]

Come on thumps, I will that's an easy one:
Mysterious ways and shit.