Michael Hughes wrote:
"Third: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human
experience. Ethics is *autonomous* and *situational,* needing no
theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and
interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life
has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and
the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and
in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for
the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life's enrichment
despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization,
bureaucratization, and dehumanization."
(The Humanist Manifesto II, taken from Prometheus Books , copyright
1973, Twelfth Printing 1974, p. 17)
Paul Robson:
Ok. I think this is a long winded way of saying. Ethics are (1) situational
you take into account the situation rather than having a flat rule and (2)
autonomous (you make up your own mind).
Michael Hughes:
Consider according to the above, moral values derive their source
from human experience, are autonomous and situational, are geared to
strive for the good life here and now, and stems from human need and
interest.
There is no denying that the underlying implicit doctrine of
situation ethics is that there are no set of moral ethics whatsoever,
except those that are determined by the individual experience, needs,
and his/her pursuit of the good life.
Paul Robson:
There is no reason for you to add the word *individual* here.
It is clear (to me) that the document is talking about the "Good Life"
of the group (you have changed it from a plural We to a singular
His/Her) In fact your whole interpretation has made this
plural->singular move.
I'm not too happy about the word "set" here either. Humanist ethics
are a set individually , but not necessarily a "group set". I think the
idea of a "group set of ethics" <as opposed to group basis for ethics>
is a religious idea. As is "doctrine" of course !
Michael Hughes:
Given the humanist manifesto's definition you folks cannot say as
you have been that murder is always wrong. It can be determined to
be *right* by the standards of situational ethics.
Paul Robson:
I'm not sure (I don't archive errancy stuff) but I doubt if "y'all" have
been
claiming "Murder is always wrong". IMHO statements of "X is always Y"
are often a nice simple encapsulation of an awful lot of whys and
wherefores (but useful emotional tools).
For example....
A lot depends on the definition of murder. We certainly in the UK have
a sort of "exclusion" of certain murders - for example wives battered by
their
husbands for 20 years who snap. (is probably the most common !).
If you define murder in this way you have the problem of "just cause" (who
decides what is just ?) .
If you define it as "unlawful killing" (who decides what is lawful & whose
laws ?)
<God's Laws, I know the answer to this one ! So who decides whose
interpretation of the Bible ?>
If you define murder as "deliberately killing someone" then there may well
be situations where this is justified (e.g. Jerry shooting someone who is
shooting other people in the vicinity for example).
Society decides (or more likely a judge and/or jury) as to the
justification. For
example, if Jerry had to shoot someone, he may well have to justify that in
court (he would in the UK) - in terms of the situation and decisions he made
in that situation as to the appropriate use of force. I doubt that Jerry is
a
'look a shoplifter - shoot' type of cop, so I doubt this would be a problem
for
him.
Michael Hughes:
Again, you may not like the implications of the doctrine, but you
cannot *honestly* deny them. As far as reality, what I describe is
exactly what is practiced by many.
Paul Robson:
So the implications of the doctrine are... for me, perhaps, there are no
"simple" answers. When you wrote about abortion , for example, you
were hmming and haaing about particular cases, I believe, and the
correctness of the action. I fully support this - this is being a human
being. Inhuman beings would say "x is ALWAYS wrong" (and would
then picket abortion clinics et al). Likewise "Homosexuality is a sin"
(so open season on the Gay community) as opposed to "I personally
think it's wrong".
If you are implying that the implications are that we have no morals,
I'll come over and do ya in ! :) You can't imply from this , for example,
that Atheists can't say something is right or wrong. We would think
it was right, or wrong, and there would be a big grey area in the middle.
Judges and Juries would decide , in the end.
Sadly it is true that "me me" is practised by many, Christians and
Atheists and don't-give-a-monkeys alike. I'm not convinced that
your 'average' Xian is more or less likely to do this. He/she may
just justify it differently. To be honest, I don't find Xians to be
"better or worse" people than Non-Xians in terms of how they
relate to me. They're just the standard human cross-section.
I don't think you would be a "me me" person,
person, but I've known preachers who are (for example all of the
"TV preachers" I've seen (bear in mind this isn't that many)
seem to be frauds boosting their ego after money, primarily)
What are you trying to say about are "situational, autonomous ethics" ?
(pick one or more - or suggest others)
- that we have no morals (often done by Xians, but not you I hope)
- that we have a strong tendency towards selfishness.
- that we can't have a definite answer all the time.
- that we can't always 'prove' our ethic - its a matter of individual (or
group) judgement.
- that because of this non-proof our opinions are less valid than Xians.
Paul Robson (autismuk@aol.com)