[PAX] Decline of ethics?

[Flavus Aquila]

Postscript thought:

One could, in the short term, use stigmatisation techniques to counter silly claims of oppression, by calling paranoia, or conspiracy theory. But, as satisfying as such techniques may be, even at their most successful, they merely remove imagined oppression to reveal real envy: To easily vanquish the Frankfurt School is to enable the foundations of Marxism.

 

[JJJA]

I think that ethics for the average Joe Blo is more about rewards and consequences: laws and social expectations, than about right and wrong, or virtue and vice.

Ethical consideration seems to be increasingly relegated to medical and political spheres.

In the recent past, systematic and consistent personal/individual ethics were taught by Churches, parents, and tertiary institutions. Increasingly people have less significant contact with Churches and parents; and tertiary institutions have largely shifted into professional ethics. So yes, I think ethics is in decline.

I take issue with your mention of 'individual and personal ethics' being taught by churches. The ethics of the church were (and still are) a combination of stolen and patented morals, hatred, racism, and general bigotry. People such as Jerry Falwell, Pope John Paul, Al Sharpton; they have all made a living out of lying and preaching utter rubbish to their respective 'flocks'. I honestly do not think that the decline of church ethics means that ethics is in decline. The church does not hold monopoly on ethics because, as I said in another post, ethics are simply morals and philosophies that any group of people can discuss and implement into their respective societies without the permission of a fatuous institution which claims moral superiority. No institution should claim such authority, and as we have seen in the case of evangelists and the Catholic Church, such an authority has backed itself up with threats and intimidation for centuries. I think it is high-time that we do move away from the church's plagiarism of ethics. The arena of rational discussion and elected secular government is certainly the right move forward for ethics, in my opinion.

 

[Free]

I personally believe that everyone has within them a moral compass. This in part comes from teaching our children the rights and wrongs of life, but it all boils down to the individual themselves. Adults who know between right and wrong, what is ethical and what isn't, still act of their own accord and need to take responsibility for their actions. Blaming the decline of ethics on people having less contact with the church is a cop out to me. I feel that in many ways it is like others have posted, things are so much more transparent now. I do not think there is a decline at all, but perhaps a different view of where ethics stem from. More and more we are being held accountable today when at other times things were swept under the rug by powers in a society, like the Catholic Church, for example. Morality and ethical sense come from within us all. It is up to us, the individual, to be responsible and accountable for our own actions and to strive for the greater good.

 

[Elegant Winter]

I take issue with your mention of 'individual and personal ethics' being taught by churches. The ethics of the church were (and still are) a combination of stolen and patented morals, hatred, racism, and general bigotry. People such as Jerry Falwell, Pope John Paul, Al Sharpton; they have all made a living out of lying and preaching utter rubbish to their respective 'flocks'. I honestly do not think that the decline of church ethics means that ethics is in decline. The church does not hold monopoly on ethics because, as I said in another post, ethics are simply morals and philosophies that any group of people can discuss and implement into their respective societies without the permission of a fatuous institution which claims moral superiority. No institution should claim such authority, and as we have seen in the case of evangelists and the Catholic Church, such an authority has backed itself up with threats and intimidation for centuries. I think it is high-time that we do move away from the church's plagiarism of ethics. The arena of rational discussion and elected secular government is certainly the right move forward for ethics, in my opinion.

Do you think the West would be less hateful, bigoted and racist without Christianity?

 

[JJJA]

Do you think the West would be less hateful, bigoted and racist without Christianity?

Yes.

 

[ThomasJ79]

I think the future of ethics lie in the humanistic ethical systems, especially in secular humanism.

 

[Free]

Yes.

I think the future of ethics lie in the humanistic ethical systems, especially in secular humanism.

I absolutely agree with you both.

 

[JJJA]

I think the future of ethics lie in the humanistic ethical systems, especially in secular humanism.

Agreed. I've always thought that there can be no true humanity without Humanism, and since ethics usually revolves around the morality of humans, then individual Humanism with a secular stance is the way forward.

 

[Elegant Winter]

Yes.

I have to admit that I find that odd. If you look at the matter from a broad perspective, white Christian countries are by far the most ethical on Earth. If Christianity were such an awful influence I doubt that would be the case.

Also, I know there are other reasons for that as well, but if Christianity were as bad as you claim it wouldn't matter. Science, reason, all of it, wouldn't matter. Christianity has made space for them and that's one of the reasons I see sense in it.

 

[JJJA]

I have to admit that I find that odd. If you look at the matter from a broad perspective, white Christian countries are by far the most ethical on Earth. If Christianity were such an awful influence I doubt that would be the case.

That's because the other countries contain even worse plagiarism and misery and have yet to adopt secular democracies. It is not an argument to suggest that 'because Christianity is not as bad as this, therefore it is automatically better'.

And why are you bringing race into this? Ethics is not defined by how white or brown you are.

 

[Elegant Winter]

That's because the other countries contain even worse plagiarism and misery and have yet to adopt secular democracies. It is not an argument to suggest that 'because Christianity is not as bad as this, therefore it is automatically better'.

And why are you bringing race into this? Ethics is not defined by how white or brown you are.

You're the one who mentioned racism. It's absurd to claim that Christian ethics are racist when white Christian countries are the least racist of all.

 

[ThomasJ79]

I have to admit that I find that odd. If you look at the matter from a broad perspective, white Christian countries are by far the most ethical on Earth. If Christianity were such an awful influence I doubt that would be the case.

Also, I know there are other reasons for that as well, but if Christianity were as bad as you claim it wouldn't matter. Science, reason, all of it, wouldn't matter. Christianity has made space for them and that's one of the reasons I see sense in it.

These nations are secular, even if some of the countries have a majority of Christians. Many Christians have accepted secular values, especially the moderate and progressive denominations.

 

[Elegant Winter]

These nations are secular, even if some of the countries have a majority of Christians. Many Christians have accepted secular values, especially the moderate and progressive denominations.

That's basically what I said.

 

[Free]

You're the one who mentioned racism. It's absurd to claim that Christian ethics are racist when white Christian countries are the least racist of all.

How is claiming that Christianity should have no hold on ethics and nor is it the direction humanity should lead into being racist? When and where was it posted? Christianity, religion in general, and its effect on ethics, or lack thereof, was being discussed, not white Christianity or white Christian countries.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I take issue with your mention of 'individual and personal ethics' being taught by churches. The ethics of the church were (and still are) a combination of stolen and patented morals, hatred, racism, and general bigotry. People such as Jerry Falwell, Pope John Paul, Al Sharpton; they have all made a living out of lying and preaching utter rubbish to their respective 'flocks'. I honestly do not think that the decline of church ethics means that ethics is in decline. The church does not hold monopoly on ethics because, as I said in another post, ethics are simply morals and philosophies that any group of people can discuss and implement into their respective societies without the permission of a fatuous institution which claims moral superiority. No institution should claim such authority, and as we have seen in the case of evangelists and the Catholic Church, such an authority has backed itself up with threats and intimidation for centuries. I think it is high-time that we do move away from the church's plagiarism of ethics. The arena of rational discussion and elected secular government is certainly the right move forward for ethics, in my opinion.

I don't see any point in taking issue with the accuracy of some particular points in your critique of Church propagated ethics.

What is of more relevance is the role that secular government can play in propagating ethical thought at this time. You of all people here seem to be keenly aware that government ethical consideration is expressed most unambiguously in legislation; as well as in the odd change to the constitution, national anthem, etc. I'm interested in your thoughts about how the government can possibly move away from REPRESENTATIVE legislation somewhat, to a more PRINCIPLED ethical legislation. By this I mean, how government moves away from minority/group interests such as militant feminism and the like. Fundamentally, the question would be: how can government lead in ethics, when the process of election and representation presumes that if follows popular opinion on ethics?

 

[JJJA]

You're the one who mentioned racism. It's absurd to claim that Christian ethics are racist when white Christian countries are the least racist of all.

You mentioned 'white' Christian countries in a topic about ethics. I mentioned how the Church preached racism, which is true. Anti-Semitic preachings from several leading scholars over the years led to the culmination of Jewish persecution in Western Europe.

St. Gregory: “Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies of God, haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers’ faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, leaven of the Pharisees, congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of goodness.”

Just to name one.

 

[Elegant Winter]

How is claiming that Christianity should have no hold on ethics and nor is it the direction humanity should lead into being racist? When and where was it posted? Christianity, religion in general, and its effect on ethics, or lack thereof, was being discussed, not white Christianity or white Christian countries.

I asked a question about the West. He answered. After which I made an effort to point out that the West, which is almost exclusively comprised of white Christian countries (meaning the charge of racism would be against white Christians), is the least racist of all.

 

[brightmoon]

What we know as secular humanist ethics grew out of Christian culture, so to assert that Western culture would be better off without Christianity doesn't make much sense. In a sense Christianity brought us where we are today. Would the Enlightenment have happened without Christianity? Who knows? In the development and intellectual history of our culture you cannot separate out religion. The very thing ideologies which oppose Christianity also grew out of it in some sense. For example when the doctrine of the church was challenged by Luther, the appeal was partially made on reason and this thought was later taken by Enlightenment thinkers which grew into what we know as secular humanism today. This is, of course simplifying the process, but my point is the rationalist ethics that we know developed as a result of Western culture/religion and are unique to it.

 

[Elegant Winter]

You mentioned 'white' Christian countries in a topic about ethics. I mentioned how the Church preached racism, which is true. Anti-Semitic preachings from several leading scholars over the years led to the culmination of Jewish persecution in Western Europe.

St. Gregory: “Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies of God, haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers’ faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, leaven of the Pharisees, congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of goodness.”

Just to name one.

I don't think the Church preaches racism nowadays though.

 

[JJJA]

What we know as secular humanist ethics grew out of Christian culture, so to assert that Western culture would be better off without Christianity doesn't make much sense. In a sense Christianity brought us where we are today. Would the Enlightenment have happened without Christianity? Who knows? In the development and intellectual history of our culture you cannot separate out religion. The very thing ideologies which oppose Christianity also grew out of it in some sense. For example when the doctrine of the church was challenged by Luther, the appeal was partially made on reason and this thought was later taken by Enlightenment thinkers which grew into what we know as secular humanism today. This is, of course simplifying the process, but my point is the rationalist ethics that we know developed as a result of Western culture/religion and are unique to it.

The Enlightenment thinkers completely separated their religious views from their rational conclusions. The most Christian nation on the planet (USA) was founded by a group of Deists and never even considered themselves fully Christian; they wanted secularism to lead the country to a brighter future. The Constitution itself was founded on the principle that no religion be given preferential treatment and that state decisions would never be influenced by religion. Humanism grew out of a rejection of Christian and other religious dogma and formed itself into the most hated minority on the planet right now (Atheists and defenders of Enlightenment modernity).