The 3 Ethics: Where do you fall?

GracieRuth said:
I'm very glad to hear your clarification. In particular, the statement became untrue when it associated thumping others with your morals ONLY with the divine camp. In real life, there are people who are pushy about "the right way to do things" in all three camps, even to the point of outlawing what they conclude as wrong behavior. For example, the autonomy based person is going to be highly intolerant of anyone he/she thinks is "intolerant": there are places in this world where it is a civil offense to say that homosexuality is a sin. This is one of the reasons that I opt for a balanced blending of approaches rather than having one side of the triangle.
Click to expand...

Ethic of Autonomy in its extreme would be similar to anarchy, a world without authority or rulers. Ethic of Community to its extreme would be similar to totalitarianism, in which the central authority of the community recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life. Ethic of Divinity to its extreme is similar to fundamentalism, in which there is strict adherence to theological or spiritual doctrines.

Does that clarify it?
 
just me said:
I'll try to get back to you on that later.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to poop all over your opinions. I'm just asking you to try to put reason to them. If you ask someone to change something or think something is inadequate, you should be able to explain yourself, no? Or at least, there is merit in figuring out where your feelings stem from. Just because you feel badly about something does not make it incorrect or inadequate. Especially, it does not make your opinion look any more valid.

And fyi, the use of the "gun" in the quote in my signiature is an example of figurative language. I couldn't even get my own gun here in Canada.

"Gun" represents putting thoughtful reasoning or some form of persuasion into your words. Aka, what I am suggesting you do.

Does that clarify it?
 
Lene Arnett Jensen has a paper online that is so very similar in content. It is dated 2004. The need to place people into boxes for some folk is astounding, but the Divinity part should best be defined by someone of prudence and understanding in the study of such a thing. I would like to see a theologian of sorts discuss this, if I may say so.

"For example, a religious fundamentalist favors the Ethic of Divinity. This preference means that in order to protect a person's eternal soul and the state of society from decay and corruption, they believe they must deter people from sinfully pursuing their own preferences by imposing moral laws on them even if they have a different faith or no faith at all."

A religious fundamentalist is a person that believes in the literal translation of the Bible. I would question if that means "all or part" of the Bible. I don't even know how to interpret parts of the Bible, having studied it with much fervor. Give me a literal translation of Revelations, please, if you will. I have a problem understanding a fundamentalist in the fullest context, as would most people. As one that believes in the scriptures, I would much rather be called a religious man that favors the ethics of love.


I do not abstain from committing adultery because of fear of the Lord. The devil is in the details. I would not commit adultery because of my love for my wife, another couple's sanctity, and my love for God and his two laws of love. The list can go on with the other old laws. I do not fear bad things happening to me if I steal. These are the definitions given for reasons behind something certain people have little understanding of. Human nature may be something they have a grasp on, but the driving force in my religion is love. In other words, to say ............


"they must deter people from sinfully pursuing their own preferences by imposing moral laws on them even if they have a different faith or no faith at all" comes from someone that knows very little about me, my religion, and/or my very nature. The rest should be self-explanatory.
 
Ethic of Autonomy - 10
Ethic of Community - 3
Ethic of Divinity - 1
 
Ethic of Autonomy - 8
Ethic of Community - 6
Ethic of Divinity - 2

The Autonomy is so high because I grew up in a rural area where one was constantly on their own and the only way to get anything done was to do it yourself, practical view with a lower population density.
The Community is higher than half because after participating in the larger group setting of college, I realized that interdependence is vital for a confined society, so the higher the population density the more important community becomes.
The Divinity is low, although I am Christian, because I believe we have so much to worry about with just things we can change (water, food, shelter, love) that their is no point in worrying about another's spirituality as we have no way to measure it or even see if anything we have done helped. "Change what you can, accept what you can't" and show caring to all!
 
just me said:
"they must deter people from sinfully pursuing their own preferences by imposing moral laws on them even if they have a different faith or no faith at all" comes from someone that knows very little about me, my religion, and/or my very nature. The rest should be self-explanatory.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think maybe the definition that OP gave was to sort of illustrate an unrealistic extreme? I think the example/definition for the divinity ethic seemed more extreme than those for the other two. It's kind of weird. I'm sure there are some people like that though, who do consider that stuff as part of their ethic. Idk, I still don't totally comprehend the distinctions between the 3 ethics the op described.
 
I have been known to fall on the ground; however, I have discovered that the art of flying is simply to fall towards the horizon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top