One of the nice things about having a Freethinkers blog is that I have a forum to share the irrational rants that are occasionally sent to me. This gem of an email came about from an exchange on YouTube.
First the video itself. It was linked to me by a friend in the atheist community, and until the very end I was convinced it was a satire of Christian beliefs. How ironic that a video that makes Christians gush about how wonderful their faith is, also stands out as an obvious example of the irrationality and disgusting morals of that very same faith. Atheists take note, we don't have to construct any straw-man arguments for those sitting on the fence, one of our best tools is the propaganda that Christians themselves produce.
If you think that I'm kidding about how much Christians were enthralled by this message, take a look for yourself on the comments page.
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Ethics Part 2.5: Moral Compasses Revisited
Before I start let me repost my late addition to the last post in my ethics series in case you missed it:
When writing about the Moral Compasses I felt guilty that I couldn't find anything to cite. I'd read about it very closely in a magazine (don't even remember which one) about a year ago, and because when I scrutinized the article I found that it fit in with my anthropological framework of human behavior and psychology, I accepted it and integrated it into my own way of thinking. Not in the habit of blogging yet, I didn't record where I found it, what the original study had been, or how to find it again. Well I was just looking under the wrong terms it seems. Today I found a NY Times article on the study (beware it's quite long) that goes into great detail on the subject (so you know I'm not making it up ;) ). Thanks to Greta Christina, another blogger who pointed me towards it in her own article on ethics and values.
Edit: I've changed the labels for each value on the original post, because these are simpler.
In her article Greta aggressively argues for the idea that some moral values are inherently stronger in liberals, and others are inherently stronger in conservatives. Remember how I said that for a secularist Harm and Fairness were the most crucial? Well Greta argues for how they are also the primary moral instincts of liberals. This makes a lot of sense, since secularism is philosophy supported by liberals and attacked by conservatives (oooh Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck; so many hours of anger and laughter that you give me). Greta points out, as I did, that these are the two value sets that are best able to be applied to both yourself and others. She also does a better job of explaining why universalization of values is important
I had another thought to share that is related to this subject: When talking about morality I consider moral/immoral to be a false dichotomy. Actions that are wrong and should be avoided or punished are obviously immoral, however everything else is not moral by default. I consider moral actions to be actions and behaviors that we want to encourage and reward. Actions that we would not punish but we also do not feel any need to encourage are morally neutral. For example, doing you homework in order to do well in school is a moral action, however watching an hour of TV after you finish would be morally neutral. I know I didn't explicitly mention morally neutral actions in my post, but they were part of the framework I was basing everything on.
When writing about the Moral Compasses I felt guilty that I couldn't find anything to cite. I'd read about it very closely in a magazine (don't even remember which one) about a year ago, and because when I scrutinized the article I found that it fit in with my anthropological framework of human behavior and psychology, I accepted it and integrated it into my own way of thinking. Not in the habit of blogging yet, I didn't record where I found it, what the original study had been, or how to find it again. Well I was just looking under the wrong terms it seems. Today I found a NY Times article on the study (beware it's quite long) that goes into great detail on the subject (so you know I'm not making it up ;) ). Thanks to Greta Christina, another blogger who pointed me towards it in her own article on ethics and values.
Edit: I've changed the labels for each value on the original post, because these are simpler.
In her article Greta aggressively argues for the idea that some moral values are inherently stronger in liberals, and others are inherently stronger in conservatives. Remember how I said that for a secularist Harm and Fairness were the most crucial? Well Greta argues for how they are also the primary moral instincts of liberals. This makes a lot of sense, since secularism is philosophy supported by liberals and attacked by conservatives (oooh Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck; so many hours of anger and laughter that you give me). Greta points out, as I did, that these are the two value sets that are best able to be applied to both yourself and others. She also does a better job of explaining why universalization of values is important
In other words, the philosophical underpinning of ethics are that they ought to be applicable to everyone. They ought to be universalizable.
And liberal values -- fairness and harm -- are universalizable.
In fact, it's inherent in the very nature of these values that they are universalizable
Ethics Part 2: Moral Compasses
As I explained in the previous post, morality is an individual's personal impulses and impressions about what is right and what is wrong. One idea recent proposed in the field of psychology is that our morality can be broken down into one of five moral compasses. I'm going to explain each of these moral compasses, and give my opinion on their value to a secular morality. (I've listed the moral compasses in the order they were presented to me, rather than in any value based order).
Ethics Part 1: Ethics and Morals
I want to do a series of posts on ethics to examine the topic from a variety of angles. Ethics is something I've gained a lot of enjoyment from studying formally, and another thing that I enjoy is sharing knowledge. I'll start with a post that short and sweet by clarifying the difference between ethics and morals.
Ethics, academically speaking, is the branch of philosophy concerned with questions of morality and ethical behavior. Ethics in more practical terms are codes of behavior created by and applied to groups, be they cultural, national, or professional. These ethical standards are the guidelines for what behaviors the group finds acceptable or "right," and deviating from them is "wrong."
Morals are personal. Everyone has a moral compass which is calibrated uniquely (more on the various moral compasses in the next post). This is your own sense of what is right and wrong.
Ethics and morals will not always align. A doctor having a sexual relationship with a patient may not be considered immoral if the doctor is not exploiting vulnerabilities of the patient, but it is always considered unethical by modern professional ethics. On the other side of the coin a defense lawyer may find murder immoral and know his client is guilty, but legal ethics require that every defendant be given a sincere defense regardless of what their lawyer thinks of them. In both of these examples it seems that ethical codes should trump personal morals. Should that always be the case? Why or why not?
Now that I've explicitly stated the meanings of the words I'll try to make sure that I use them correctly for the rest of the series. Feel free to hold me to that with some good natured chiding if you spot a mistake. I think I'll also try to leave an open ended question like the one above in all the posts for this series as well.
In search of reason,
Mike
Ethics, academically speaking, is the branch of philosophy concerned with questions of morality and ethical behavior. Ethics in more practical terms are codes of behavior created by and applied to groups, be they cultural, national, or professional. These ethical standards are the guidelines for what behaviors the group finds acceptable or "right," and deviating from them is "wrong."
Morals are personal. Everyone has a moral compass which is calibrated uniquely (more on the various moral compasses in the next post). This is your own sense of what is right and wrong.
Ethics and morals will not always align. A doctor having a sexual relationship with a patient may not be considered immoral if the doctor is not exploiting vulnerabilities of the patient, but it is always considered unethical by modern professional ethics. On the other side of the coin a defense lawyer may find murder immoral and know his client is guilty, but legal ethics require that every defendant be given a sincere defense regardless of what their lawyer thinks of them. In both of these examples it seems that ethical codes should trump personal morals. Should that always be the case? Why or why not?
Now that I've explicitly stated the meanings of the words I'll try to make sure that I use them correctly for the rest of the series. Feel free to hold me to that with some good natured chiding if you spot a mistake. I think I'll also try to leave an open ended question like the one above in all the posts for this series as well.
In search of reason,
Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)