[Peace-discuss] Re: abortion and ethics, was Re: Immigration
Reform
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Wed Dec 9 15:31:43 CST 2009
Well, if ethics exist only in the fantasy realm, then it would be fair
to say the that Killing is ok, and murder is ok, and they are OK because
we reject ethics and we reject philosophies and belief systems that
disapprove of murder.
No reason, then to oppose war or any war except upon purely utilitarian
grounds.
"I am opposed to the war not because of the charred remains of the
innocent and the not-so-innocent, but rather the cost per Pashtun
incinerated and the number that need to be rubbed out isn't a good
deal. We could do a lot better rubbing out indigent indigenes somewhere
else...Let's take the War on Poverty to Bangladesh"
"The return on investment from the AfPak war doesnt look like it will
meet our income expectations for the 4th quarter. Perhaps we should
spin the war enterprise there off to some willing buyer..."
On 12/9/2009 3:14 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote:
>> "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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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