Quote:
Originally Posted by Christian Nelson  what else would you propose for them to use as an authority to end the line of questioning? In other words, if you cannot use a precedent, or unchanging (even semi unchanging) set of rules, what keeps you from just making it up as you go along, to suit your whim of the moment? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christian Nelson Right and wrong have definitions for most people. |
I disagree: most people feel they know the difference, and can call out any given set of facts as one or the other. But they couldn't define for you why they feel that way if you put a gun to their head and told them their life depended on a well-reasoned answer (not that that approach would provoke dispassionate thinking generally).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christian Nelson I guess I don't understand what the problem is with someone who believes what is written in a book using that same book to describe what the ideal they believe should be. |
I'm not saying that those who propose the ethical norms by which society should forcefully rule its members should not justify those norms by reasoning that logically leads back to some core set of widely-held, abet irrational, beliefs. And I'm certainly not saying that that justification or those foundational irrational beliefs shouldn't be codified; quite the opposite on both counts.
While facts can inform our decisions, they cannot compel them. You need an "ought" statement, somewhere along the line, to make a decision. That "ought," assuming it pretends to some moral authority beyond superior force, ought to justify itself based on the most broadly accepted beliefs of those to be compelled. My problem with the various religion-based ethical systems I've studied--Christianity; Judiasim; and, to a lesser extent, Islam--is that they look to texts that are far, far too conclusory.
"Thou shalt not kill," for example, is not much of a justification for, or even a codification of, a widely-held belief. It's the beginning of the discussion: why is killing bad; is it always, in all factual contexts, bad; how bad is it; what should the consequences of killing be and why; etc etc etc.
Admittedly, no matter how far back you want to go, every human rule comes down to a simple statement of irrational belief, usually backed by an implied or express threat of force to defend that irrational belief: "thou shalt (not)... Or Else." But when I get a mere cite to scripture instead of a well-reasoned justification based on more generally accepted ethical principles, I find that insufficient. If I lived in a theocracy, where scripture enjoyed the status of the Constitution, I would (assuming I agreed with that system) find a bare textual citation authoritative. Instead, I prefer a long, reasoned explanation from the specific "this ought to be the way this narrow realm of our existance is run" to more general principles upon which all involved can agree (killing without apparent necessity of preserving life, limb, or property, or without provocation that genuinely overrides the self-control of the killer is wrong because life is the single most precious thing a mortal being has and etc etc etc).