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).
HUGHES
Agreed.
Paul Robson:
Well, you shouldn't have. If you want to stick to dictionary definitions
rather
than colloquial approximations, that is. My Dictionary (Penguin concise)
defines autonomy as 'self-governing'. So my definition was wrong. (Sorry)
Bear this in mind with what follows....
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.
HUGHES
Paul, it rather surprises me that you would say this. Look again at
your above statement. You admit that it was "a long winded way of
saying, Ethics are...(2) autonomous (you make up your own mind)."
Then you turn around and object to my use of the word individual??
What "human experience" would they be saying that human ethics
derive from Paul? We are not Borg, we don't have a group
consciousness. Human experience as used above would have to derive
from personal experience.
Paul:
I've already said that my definition was wrong (which is where you are
trying to imply individual from, rather than the Manifesto's definition
of
autonomy).
This is a classic "false dichotomy" argument. Either our "human
experience" is only derived from personal experience, or we have to
be like the Borg (one single shared conciousness). Unfortunately,
for this argument there is a huge are in the middle. We can share
our personal experiences, so we can derive our ethics from ourselves,
our friends and family, society, or religious books (if you prefer).
So it isn't limited to *individual* experience,needs etc - there is no
reason for someone not to account for the other members of the
group, however large that may be.
PAUL
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.
HUGHES
The we in this affirmative, Paul, is we the undersigned. A perusal
of the preface should make this fairly clear. Further they said that
ethics needed no ideological sanction. Ideology is defined by "The
Random House Dictionary" as, "1. the body of doctrines or beliefs
that guides a particular individual, class, or culture." That a
group would determine that ideology would be a sanction that they say
is not needed, therefore it again comes down to individual ideology
which of course needs no sanction at all.
Paul:
So does every plural reference in any of these entries only refer to
the signatories ? (Interesting effect on your constitution :) ) You can't
have it both ways. If the "we" only applies to the signatories , it is
only "their" manifesto and not applicable to anyone else !
Back to the dictionary agane. (Molesworth rools). Your definition of
ideology struck me as too all-encompassing - e.g. virtually anything
could be an "ideology". According to Penguin Concise "body of ideas
forming a basis for political,economic or social system/theory that
all ideas derive from sensations/science of ideas (philosophical) /
vague theorising &| impractical views (figurative))" . If you really want
to settle this I'll borrow my associates' OED.
I would choose the first definition in this instance. What I interpret
the passage to mean therefore, is that the ideological sanction =>
no <anything that enforces a code of conduct> from a <body of
ideas forming a basic for P/E/S theory>. (or this is what my
dictionary says, anyway....)
PAUL
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 !
`
HUGHES
I am not sure what you're not happy with here Paul. I do know that
you have again contradicted you objection to my use of the term
"individual" above.
I use the term "set" in the following way, "7. to determine or fix
definitely. 8. to direct or settle resolutely. 9. to establish for
others to follow." You really should have no problem with the term
or its use of it at all. Under the above humanist definition there
are no set morals.
Paul Robson:
No you don't. IMHO. There are two meanings of set here. "fixed" and
"grouping". I take the use of "set of moral ethics" to be the grouping
type set (e.g. a collection of moral ethics) as opposed to the "fixed"
moral ethics you talk about here. This is because you have dropped the
"of" e.g. gone from "set of moral ethics" to "set morals".
If you meant to say "set moral ethics" then I agree (in the sense that
there are no fixed set of moral rules about what to do in a given
situation).
Michael Hughes: (1st)
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).
HUGHES
There has been pretty much a clear distinction by both errantist and
inerrantist alike between murder (unlawful killing) and lawful
killing. The following points that you make I believe have also been
made.
Paul Robson:
If you want to define murder as "lawful killing" then you don't have
a moral problem at all , because you can look at the "laws" to see
whether or not it is classified as murder. This presupposes, of course
that the laws are correct. If you are talking "judicially" (e.g. not
God's
laws) you have many problems with Hitler, because he did come to
power legally (with a fair amount of non-illegal gerrymandering !) and
then passed laws (including the Enabling law which I believe means
"I can do basically everything" (can't find my copy of Bullock's
Hitler,sorry))
And if you take it to mean "God's Laws" then you get down to
personal interpretations of the Bible (all of whose proponents believe
themselves to be right !) again.
Michael:
It seems to me that the real disagreement has begun to center
around just exactly what the doctrine of situation ethics is.
Paul:
Yes yes yes. I have posted this at least twice. (Not doctrine but
definition preferred). There is no point "arguing situations" with
Jerry to debate Situational Ethics unless you can come to a
consensus on what it means. As I see it, Jerry wants some
"personal choice" involved in the SE definition, whereas the
non-theists view it as "ethics for a situation" - e.g. the "ethic"
"lying is wrong" does not apply in every situation.
Michael Hughes: (1st)
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:
Yes I can yes I can yes I can yes I caaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnn
(voice breaks)
<snipped for brevity>
HUGHES
I don't think I "hmm and hawed" about abortion. I said abortion is
wrong. I said I am not that sure that abortion is justified in the
case where the mother may die, but the child live, and that it would
be justified in tubular pregnancies where there is no chance of the
child living and bringing the child to term would seriously endanger
the life of the mother. Pretty clear I think.
Paul Robson:
Well, I view this as a clear statement that "Abortion is not always
wrong" (as you've said it is justified (?) in case x). I am aware
that justified != right BTW but you aren't saying it is wrong in this
case. This is what I meant.... in some circumstances it is "justified".
(Hmm and Haw was a bad choice of language)
I suspect some of your colleagues may think it is *never* justified,
"trust to God for mother and child's survival"....
Michael Hughes:
However though I think abortion is wrong, and the vast, vast
majority of abortions are abortions of convenience, I in no way think
that this give me the right to kill the abortionists. That is still
murder. (BTW, some time back a fellow murdered an abortionist, many
felt that it was justified in that it may have save many children's
live. It was faulty reasoning, those that wanted abortions simply
went elsewhere, but it is a good/bad example of situation ethics.
The ends justifies the means).
I believe homosexuality is a sin. That does not give me the right
to go homosexual "bashing."
Paul Robson:
This is my problem with some Xians. This is your viewpoint, it is perfectly
valid (I wouldn't agree about homosexuality !) but you don't try and force
it on others. If you tried to make abortion/homosexuality illegal by direct
(or indirect) means this would be "wrong" IMHO. If all Xians had your
viewpoint then most atheists would have little to complain about (but
there'd still be the fun of the debate).
England is worse in some ways. We have state-sponsored religious
schools for example, and compulsory prayer in school, which has to
be of a "mainly Xian" type (even if the school is 90% Muslim).
For most of the children it has the opposite effect to what I imagine
is intended - they are just totally turned off by the whole thing.
(except one wonderful occasion when the Head decided to sing "We
shall overcome" and Year 11 (the 15-16 year olds) sung it in the style
of a soccer crowd to the (slightly) suppressed hysteria of the staff.)
I think "vast vast" is not a justifiable claim. Undoubtedly there are some
in this category, but I think this is not supported by evidence.
(unless "Convenience" == the cases you stated above)
PAUL
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.
HUGHES
No I have never meant to imply that Atheist or innerrantists have
no morals. What I think that Jerry and I have tried to point out is
that is situational ethics, in all of its implications, is a correct
doctrine, you would have no right to complain of my actions in a
given stituation.
Paul Robson:
Why not ? If situational ethics is a "group" thing as opposed to a
purely "individual" thing then you can argue it goes against the
ethics of the group.
If you think "situational ethics" simply involves "doing what is best
for you all the time" BTW, this is correct, but very few humanists
(or anyone) would subscribe to this.
Michael Continues:
If situation ethics, which needs no ideological
sanction, is correct, then it would be wrong to prosecute me for
stealing, murder, or any other crime, because I would be being judged
by a sanctioned set of standards which may or may not be in line with
my set of standards and may or may not look at my situation from my
perspective. You may *think* my actions right or wrong all you wish,
but you would be powerless to act upon it. Unless of course my
actions would be considered by you as a threat to your pursuit of the
"good life.*
Paul Robson:
Same problem - only applies if you use "situational ethics" as
"individual desires only" with no "group ethic"
PAUL
<snipped again>
HUGHES
<small snip>. I know may christians that feel
that situation ethics is a proper *code?*. However, this does not
make it right. Again the argument here is not so much "Us christians
are better than you atheist" as whether or not situation ethics is a
true/valid doctrine.
Paul:
I think the atheists would agree that your definition of "situational
ethics" (individuality) is not a "good" doctrine (super accurate terminology
or what ?) i.e. most of them would not subscribe to it. They wouldn't
agree with your derivation of it from the Humanist Manifesto.
<snip some stuff where we are nice to each other for a change>
I don't see what either "true" or "valid" mean applied to a doctrine.
Does this mean from the religious viewpoint ? I don't think the
"self-only" doctrine is internally inconsistent.
HUGHES
I realize as do you there are frauds. However, just as inerrantists/
atheists don't want to be judged by the actions of the few, neither
do we christians.
Paul:
It's a shame , (as is often the case) the "worst" make the most noise.
Because people see the Larsons of this world more than say you
(or Jerry or most of the Vicars I know) it doesn't make for good PR
for Xians (among the non Xians). The Atheists had a similar problem
with Ms O'Hair, who I have never seen, but some of her speeches are
a little .... over the top ? (and I read some awful stuff about all
agnostics
are cowards ?). Perhaps this is an example of "empty vessels making the
most noise".
(another example is Dr Gish , who is so transparently dishonest he
makes Creationism look totally dishonest too)
PAUL
<suggestions for what they think atheist ethics are... sort of snipped>
HUGHES
I don't think any of the above fit what I am trying to say Paul. My
point for the post that you have responded to was in rebuttal of the
accusation the we (christians) have redefined situation ethics.
Paul:
Well, I'm not convinced that your deductions from the Humanist
Manifesto show your definition because (i) you accepted my inaccurate
definition of autonomy to imply individuality (ii) a too-open definition
of ideology.
<Snipped Michael's reply to another post from someone else>
Thanks,
Regards, Paul Robson (autismuk@aol.com)
PS : Consulted my "Introduction to Philosophical Analysis".
(John Hospers,1995). It's neither theistic or atheistic IMHO.
Nearest thing I could find was "Ethical relativism : Defined as the
view that what is right at one time or place may not be right
in another time or place, that what is right varies from culture
to culture, not what is "thought" to be right (which clearly
does vary) but what IS right". as opposed to Ethical nihilism
"which is that there are no justification for any moral beliefs whether
relativistic or not; moral convictions are simply opinions having
no justification at all". Couldn't find "Situational ethics" at all.
Not in my dictionary, may have a look in a big OED.