[Peace-discuss] Re: abortion and ethics,
was Re: Immigration Reform
Laurie Solomon
ls1000 at live.com
Wed Dec 9 15:14:15 CST 2009
> "Ethics is a condition of the world, like logic," wrote Wittgenstein. In
> that sense, discussions of ethics, like discussions of logic, need not
> depend on theological agreement.
Just because a famous or not so famous philosopher says something does not
make it true - even if that philosopher is Wittgenstein. You must really
like that quote given the number of times you cite it; but you fail to give
any evidence to support that Wittgenstein actually meant what you attribute
to him by the phrase "condition of the world." Are you suggesting that
ethics is a necessary condition of the world or just an optional one,
ethics is an empirical or theoretical condition, ethics is being used in the
sense of a general analytic concept or a substantively specific referent of
the general analytic concept? Moreover, are we using "ethics" as a singular
or a plural? As a singular, the statement would be "ethics is a condition";
but as a plural, it would be "ethics are a condition." This may be all
distinctions without a difference or they may be a significant distinctions
and differences with respect to what the meaning of the quote is.
Moreover, the quote addresses "ethics" and "logic" and not "discussions" of
either as being conditions of the world. I am not sure if you are saying
that one may or may not justify one's ethics in terms of religion or if you
are saying that the substantive contents of one's ethics may or may not be
dependent on or grounded in religion. I cannot help but notice that you
impose your ethics and ethical values into the discussion when you say: "
Of course, someone may hold views on ethical matters for reasons based in
theology, saying, e.g., I don't commit murder because God forbids it (or,
*unethically* [emphasis mine], I do commit murder because God commands it).
The former is implied to be an ethical statement while the latter is
explicitly declared to be an unethical statement by you. I do have to
wonder what in the universe empirically, theoretically, or analytically says
or suggests that "killing" or "murder" is unethical other than some
quasi-religious, religious , or philosophical belief system with its
implicit value system. One can say that "killing" and "murder" are a
condition of the world like logic and ethics in that empirically animals in
nature are always killing or murdering other animals or plants - if not for
pleasure than for survival - and that act is usually committed with some
deliberation - rudimentary or otherwise - rather than by reflexive impulse.
A second complication in referring to notions of "theology" is that it puts
forth a very limited view of what is religion (namely that only theorcratic
religions - those with gods - are religions) and what is theology (namely,
only systems of thought and belief that contain or reference gods or God).
There have been and still are secular religions - indeed some (including me)
would view science as a secular religion and magic as a profane versus
sacred religion. There are sacred and profane theologies. One could
consider Science as a profane theology in which nature is god. Hence, in
your presentations, you have rigged the discussion in your favor by your
choice of both words and meanings as well as the inclusion and exclusion of
implicit values and assumptions.
> As a matter of intellectual history, the Judeo-Christian (and Islamic)
> tradition has contributed to ethical and logical -- that is to say,
> political and scientific -- discussion, primarily by removing the gods
> from the universe.
This is bullshit and you know it. Science may have been responsible for a
lot of things; but it did not remove the gods from the universe. They are
still there if someone wants to believe that they are; all Science did was
to preclude them from the scientific discussion of the universe as a
necessary or a sufficient condition of that discussion restricting such
discussions to gods or the topics of gods as empirical subjects of
discussion or objects of empirical analysis in the scientific discussion.
The political in the traditions you speak to deals with the practical and
hence profane components of everyday life and not to the sacred components
of society. This separation between theological and secular, sacred and
profane, in the traditions you refer to, came with the compromise in
Christianity during the Roman conquest of Judea; it was less of a
differentiation in early and even later Judeo and Islamic traditions. The
distinction between religious and secular, sacred and profane, became wider
and more institutionalized with the advent of Protestantism. (Evidently,
you did not read or put much faith into the works of Max Weber in the
Sociology of Religion of which The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of
Capitalism was the conclusion of an extended and detailed study utilizing a
counterfactual thought experiment methodology which was based on such works
as his books: The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism, The Religion
of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism, and Ancient Judaism.)
However, even in contemporary societies the gods have not been removed from
political and social discussions despite the increased secularization of
both the religious and the practical socio-political-economical worlds. It
may be the case that you do not like the current gods that the contemporary
world honors - namely celebrities, politicians, the wealthy and famous,
people of position and power, experts, etc. - but in contemporary society,
they are the gods in a secular theocracy.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:06 AM
To: "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Brussel Morton K." <mkbrussel at comcast.net>; "E. Wayne Johnson"
<ewj at pigs.ag>; "AWARE peace discussion" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Re: abortion and ethics, was Re: Immigration Reform
> "Ethics is a condition of the world, like logic," wrote Wittgenstein. In
> that sense, discussions of ethics, like discussions of logic, need not
> depend on theological agreement.
>
> Of course, someone may hold views on ethical matters for reasons based in
> theology, saying, e.g., I don't commit murder because God forbids it (or,
> unethically, I do commit murder because God commands it). But they would
> surely be subject to ethical (and logical) critique.
>
> As a matter of intellectual history, the Judeo-Christian (and Islamic)
> tradition has contributed to ethical and logical -- that is to say,
> political and scientific -- discussion, primarily by removing the gods
> from the universe.
>
>
> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>> Actually, you should say "some people's" ethics doesn't depend on
>> theology, shouldn't you? Some people's ethics clearly does. There is a
>> textbook philosophical/theological debate, for example, over whether "God
>> wills the Good because it is good, or the Good is good because God wills
>> it," (or words to that effect).
>> Or, perhaps you mean that the latter position is counter-ethical?
>>
>> Ricky
>>
>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>
>> --- On *Tue, 12/8/09, C. G. Estabrook /<galliher at illinois.edu>/* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Immigration Reform Rally!
>> To: "Brussel Morton K." <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
>> Cc: "E. Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>, "AWARE peace discussion"
>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 10:08 AM
>>
>> Mort, as usual, seems particularly interested in theology. We're
>> talking about
>> ethics, which doesn't depend on theology. That's why we all agree
>> that our
>> ending human lives in Afghanistan is wrong.
>>
>>
>> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>> > Jennifer, you are dealing with theologically frozen minds on this
>> issue. The
>> > issue should have no place on the peace-discuss website, but
>> fanatics will
>> > not be restrained. --mkb
>> >
>> >
>> > On Dec 7, 2009, at 8:55 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's a medical procedure that results in the death of a majority
>> of those
>> >> who undergo it. That after all is the point of the
>> procedure. --CGE
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>> >>> There is only ONE pro-choice argument, so far as I'm concerned:
>> ALL women
>> >>> should be able to choose whether to continue or terminate a
>> pregnancy,
>> >>> and because it's a medical procedure, ALL women should have
>> health
>> >>> insurance that covers termination, should they choose that...
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>
>> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list