tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13308732.post8522202329840115306..comments2023-10-18T02:23:07.047-05:00Comments on A Pagan Sojourn: Interfaith Blog Event #2: Ethics, Intrinsic or Relative?S. Nicholehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04751328960282952373noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13308732.post-83729296290953263442006-10-26T06:13:00.000-05:002006-10-26T06:13:00.000-05:00I've had to think about this for a while, and even...I've had to think about this for a while, and even still I'm not quite sure how best to commit my thoughts and reactions to words.<br /><br />I agree that we are taught morality and ethics as we grow, and that the expressed structure of morality and ethic is socially-engineered and socially-regulated. However this in itself does not mean or guarantee that wrong and right do not exist on their own, and that our moral and ethical structures aren't reactions to those concepts.<br /><br />I would posit that any offense against nature is wrong. There are ethical structures in place that might make us feel better about such offenses; but as I suggested, I do not think these structures affect rightness or wrongness, only our perception of them. If we use the first definition of <a href="http://www.webster.com/dictionary/nature">nature</a> offered by <i>Webster's OnLine</i>, then an offense against the inherent character or constitution of something or someone would be to go against the core, against the foundation or essence...this would be the very definition of intrisically wrong.<br /><br />The devil is in the details, though, because this leaves us to determine what nature actually is and isn't.Bernulfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12899674801628309805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13308732.post-26781597479855073422006-10-25T10:24:00.000-05:002006-10-25T10:24:00.000-05:00Nice to be back in dialogue again. Thanks for such...Nice to be back in dialogue again. Thanks for such thoughtful responses to my question. <br /><br />Perhaps "intrinsic" was not quite the word I was searching for. My question is not intended to be "are people naturally good, evil, or neutral" though that would be an intersting topic sometime. Instead, I wonder if there are some things even from your perspectives that are basically wrong (or right) all on their own. I can think of a list of wrongs that I would find to be in that category (see my blog article), though they could be summarized to a couple of basic things that are right (also in my blog article). Are concepts of "justice" or "human rights" merely social constructs, or do they carry (to borrow some terminolgy) self-evident weight of their own? <br /><br />Mike, you come close to that in your maxim of Buddhist morality... but my question would be for you: are there any objective grounds for your maxim or is it purely experiencial? And if so do you actually mean that it could be "right" for some people not to follow that maxim? Is it truly OK for some people to harm others' experience or expectation of happiness? Anyway, that would make an interesting dialogue to continue. Thanks guysPastor Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453759295391553973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13308732.post-33925189173186171412006-10-24T07:35:00.001-05:002006-10-24T07:35:00.001-05:00Hi Sojourner,
I like your approach from a psychol...Hi Sojourner,<br /><br />I like your approach from a psychological perspective. This is a big reason why I see claims to Absolute Truth -- and therefore claims to Absolute Wrongness for all differing opinions -- to be such an intractable position. My education as an electrical engineer and my training in Aikido are two obvious examples of personal experiences that have thoroughly shaped the way I see the world, physically and spiritually. But very few people will have had my exact same experiences, and hence their lives will evolve much differently, as will their beliefs. <br /><br />In terms of ethics, it's as you pointed out--we develop our ethical nature through our cultural experiences and the way we are raised. I really see it as quite clear: when one comes upon a situation in which the ethical choice is questionable, one can either resort to a pat answer from a book (choose any book you want - who's to say a religious text is any more qualified to make such distinctions) or word-of-mouth decrees, or one can assess the situation on its merits and make the best decision possible to effect the least harm on those involved. Nice essay!Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17934386917419130389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13308732.post-43860115555689196382006-10-24T07:35:00.000-05:002006-10-24T07:35:00.000-05:00Thoughtful post, Sojourner. It's one of those ques...Thoughtful post, Sojourner. It's one of those questions I've thought about a great deal over the years, both as a Christian and then a Pagan/Heathen, and my interest in it was only heightened while working towards my philosophy degree. I look forward to reading the two essays, but for now, I agree with you that morality is taught us, but I believe that people are intrinsically good, that it is in our physiological makeup to be "social animals". I'll try to read the essays later and will probably post on my blog and point people here to follow the thread.Hrafnkell Haraldssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15299724038112766262noreply@blogger.com