Entry 43 dated 20000910

jackpolo's comments on my entry
I see you point witness you're almost godly..

I see your point. You do see the necessity of punishment in society . For a moment I also thought you equated punishment with condemnation of the person. However in the real world , some amount of subjectivity will come into play. Afterall we are all humans even if we are judges, doctors or lawyers. I can't imagine a judge sentancing a man for rape torture and then murder , and thinking within himself , "oh he's a fine man actually but ah! a pity the effects of environment and society..." The sentancing judge will in all probability be disgusted with the crime himself, but hopefully he will still be fair in his judgement.

Ideally if a judge sentances a man, he does so giving him that punishment which befits the crime and not more, I would have thought. To give him more than necessary punishment so that it will be a deterrent to others is itself wrong. Why should he be victimise to be a deterrent or an example, just because he happened to be the no1 or no 22nd one to commit the crime? So I think we are in agreement where that is concerned.

Looking at your posting on Hitler again, maybe you believe too much in what Hitler says. Hey, the man was a politician, a dictator a racist responsible for the Holocast and you believe him when he says he is a Christian? If Hitler for all his vile deeds is a Christain, then I am an Angel. But I really should not judge Hitler, who are we to judge him. Bibically only GOD will judge in the end days.

Entry 42 dated 20000910

My reply to lincoln
No need to condemn, but still need to punish!

I think you have misunderstood me. Non-condemnation does not preclude punishment. Kindly read my reply to jackpolo which is coded as 19.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. (Entry 21).

Here's the meaning of condemn (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Online Dictionary):

Main Entry: con·demn Pronunciation: k&n-'dem Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French condemner, from Latin condemnare, from com- + damnare to condemn -- more at DAMN Date: 14th century 1 : to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation 2 a : to pronounce guilty : CONVICT b : SENTENCE, DOOM 3 : to adjudge unfit for use or consumption 4 : to declare convertible to public use under the right of eminent domain

I am using the word in the most common sense of it -- sense 1. You could pronounce a convict guilty and yet in your mind not think of him as evil.

Admittedly, this is more a mental attitude. But it is crucial because it allows you not to hate the criminal, but to hate what he did.

Entry 41 dated 20000910

lincolnsoo's response to me (entry 19)
If we just condemn the act and not the criminal

If we do that, we will probably have to build more mental homes instead of jails. Efficient defence counsels will usually argue for the criminals.1) an unintentional rash act 2) moments of acute madness 3) abused childhood leading to psychotic behavior 4) mental disorder 5) suffering from halluciationary effects due to drugs or psychotic sydrome 6) provocation causing moments of lost of control and rage.

So what do we tell the parents of the victims,"Sorry your daughter was just unfortunate that she was killed . The killer although her lover was suffering from temporarily dementia and thought your daughter was his abusive step-mother, so he strangled her and that is also partly because he has this neurosis "self strangulation syndrome" which he does to himself as an act of self abuse. When he killed your daughter he actually thought he was abusing himself" So uncle and aunt, sorry your daughters death was unfortunate, we condemn the act or acts that caused her death but you know, we cannot condemn Frankie Foo, because he has all these problems!" 'So we have enrolled him in Serene Home for the Mentally Unsound till he gets better"

I'll say a "load of rubbish!" If I were that uncle and aunty who lost their daughter.

"We understand your loss and your anger and your feelings uncle and aunty but we have condemned the acts in the newspapers already, what more can we do, we cannot condemn the criminal, maybe we should condemn his step-mother for having abused him that led to his psychotic behavior."

"No we cannot dothat because the stepmother was that way because of her own step-father who also abused her and made her the psychotic lousy step mother that she was!"

Entry 40 dated 20000909

My reply to Pondicherry
Use the tool or not.....it is up to you

All of life make up the contents of ethics. The other day, we discussed the ethics of prostitution. Ethics in government and politics is relevant in the issue of ministers' salaries. Bioethics will become increasingly important as the mysteries of genomics are revealed. So long as life has to relate to life, the ethics of it make up one notable aspect of such a relationship.

I agree that ethics has to rely on certain principles that are universal in nature. The challenge may be to discover exactly what all these principles are and come to a consensus regarding them. Should man lord it over the animals, for instance, just because he can?

Blame ethics? Whatever for? You have to decide if you wish to apply rational thinking as your guide to action or if you wish to listen to priests and mullahs. Just do what you feel is useful for you. Whichever tool you use, the objective is a win-win situation for all concerned -- whenever possible.

Entry 39 dated 20000909

Pondicherry's query to me [modified by him]
Ethics-the reasoning from?

Ethics; where does ethics come from?. It must have been derived from a body of universal principles and or shared philosophies or beliefs. Some of these beliefs may even be religious philosophical beliefs. It could even be some share values or understanding within a community thus we may say the ethics of doing business differs one country to another. We cannot blame ethics for man's frailty. Can we blame religion for man's frailty?

Euthanasia now that's interesting. Is it ethical? No? No life support? it that ethical? Private Oncologists charging exhibitant fees, is that ethical? Hospitals looking into your CPF account and demanding deposits before admitting you in, is that ethical? Hospitals insisting that your bills be totally paid up before releasing the body of the deceased, is that ethical?

Entry 38 dated 20000911

red wind's reply to me
Thank you for considering - to Witness

Thank you for your consideration of my posting. I have always tried to keep an open mind about things (quite difficult at times though). I've constantly tried to live by the precept, 'question everything and believe nothing absolutely' - especially one's own views. One's own views are often limited by our current state of intelligence. And if we are to acknowledge that our intelligence is constantly growing, then our views, if on the right track, is nothing but a step closer to the truth but never completely possessing it in its entirety. Constant revision, modification and that much needed dash of humility seems to be the key.

I applaud the intellectual humility you have exhibited and if anything, it can only see an ongoing positive correlation between growing intelligence and grasp of the truth. I completely agree with you, "...so much knowledge and wisdom to try and acquire...but so little time." But humanity and the rest of creation is worth the effort isn't it?

I salute you.

Best Regards. And the best for your academic year.

Edwin Anthony

Entry 37 dated 20000911

My reply to red wind
Still seeking the divine...

redwind...

A perceptive posting. Although I have just about given up on formal religion, I do believe in some aspect of the divine (though this may not be any kind of being at all). I find theories such as the Gaia Theory (the world is truly a living organism) to be inherently an attractive one.

I greatly admire especially the views of the likes of Ken Wilber whose landmark book "A Brief History of Everything" (Shambala Publications, 1996, available at Borders) is absolutely riveting. Wilber refers to those who subscribe to a purely materialistic landscape as living in flatland. His division of the lifesphere into four sectors: individual-external (scientific/objective), individual-internal (psychological and spiritual/subjective), society external (sociological) and society internal (cultural) -- in my view is very insightful.

For instance, based on Wilber's categories, the mind/brain problem becomes more easily understood. Brain is what you get when you examine the individual from the outside looking in. From this external-objective perspective, no matter how sophisticated your tools are, the mind is nowhere to be found. In order to study the mind, we need to adopt the internal-subjective perspective. Once we adopt this perspective, it is so obvious that we do have minds: pain for instance is a distinctive feeling that is more than just the excitation of a nerve.

If anything, I think I could be a pantheist. But my experience of the divine is still so elementary that it is akin to that at the kindergarten stage or below.

The world is truly a wondrous place though -- so much knowledge and wisdom to try and acquire.... but so little time.

Entry 36 dated 20000910

red wind's reply to me
Religion and Humanism - to Witness

I view 'God' as an 'ideal'. Arguing about the existence of God diverts us from focusing on what God 'stands for'. Some years ago i was caught up in a discussion on whether God exists. I however thought that the question, 'if it was good to believe in God', to be more fruitful. Dwelling on the problem of 'the existence of God' would depend on the criteria which one applies to determine the 'truth' of a phenomena. When applying the scientific method, 'God's' existence cannot to date be proven. However, the question we should ask is, 'Does Science discover reality or CONFINE our perception of it'? Are there no other methods to determine truth? Our love-affair with science has brought about a tunnel-vision that has focused our view on one at the expense of trying out others. I am not stating a support for or against here but merely stating that we have a lot to learn and that relying on one means failing to consider other possibilities. If anything, that is a more 'scientific' view when one considers the spirit with which Scientific inquiry has been pursued.

I see that you are inclined to categorise 'religion', 'god', 'myth' and 'superstition' together, sometimes implying their interchangeability. That is erroneous. Can we not extract that which is relevant and appropriate to answer the queries brought about by the excesses of our times? Such a view as that which you propose is contradictory to your posting on morality as a matter of degree. Bad in one area does not mean ALL bad does it?

Wars being conducted in the name of religion do not make the latter bad but is more indicative of our misinterpretation of religious precepts. Humanism is not guiltless when it comes to this. History has shown that Western Humanism was one of the main contributory factors in bringing about a standard of comparison which in turn was utilised to justify slavery, extermination of peoples, deforestation and some of its legacy includes the current crisis we are facing with global climatic conditions. Does this mean that humanism in itself is bad?

Condemning either humanism or religion is similar to throwing out the rice because of a few weevils. I urge you not to make that mistake in your analyses which has been very well thought out and most eloquently expressed to date.

I believe that a fusion is required between humanism and religion. Spiritual guidance along with 'helping ourselves'. Let us really study all aspects of a phenomena before prematurely discarding it.

Best Regards,

Edwin Anthony

Entry 35 dated 20000910

My reply to red wind
Religion is not for me

Scriptural texts are problematic because they are inextricably bound up with myths, moral prounouncements and common sense. If even the starting assumptions of these texts are questionable (for instance, does god exist?) how can they be relied on for moral guidance?

If indeed the texts are so superior as moral guides, there wouldn't have been so many instances of war conducted in the name of religion.

Religious texts are so nebulous in their interpretations that elites can interpret them anyway they like for their own agendas. Hence Marx's observation that "Religion is the opiate of the masses".

There is a wealth of humanist literature in the history of mankind more than enough to last several lifetimes to pore through. I prefer to rely on these, and on my own thinking, as a guide to action.

Like the laws of science, the principles of humanism are sometimes uncertain. But there is no choice. It is either that, or reliance on superstitions.

Entry 34 dated 20000910

red wind's comment to my reply
Religion - a particular time and culture? to Witness

Yes, different religions may have arisen in response to and as remedies for particular maladies of a particular time and space. However, that is no basis to state that it is only for THAT time and space. Many religious precepts may be as relevant our day and age as it was during the time of its creation. The 13th commandment of Christ's, 'love your neighbour as yourself' is one.

There are a host of issues which religion in time and country of origin may have addressed. However, timeless 'sins' such as greed, hate, lust, etc, are as relevant then as they are now. The green movement and some new-age groups are actually the legacy of our religious pasts attempting to rectify the damage caused by our movement away from these pasts.

If one is to discard these precepts and rely on one's 'own reasoning' then this begs the question, "what criteria is this 'reasoning' based on'?

Our conscience contains a variety of precepts that may be a product of our times but may also contain those of a religion of another time and space handed down through the ages by its incorporation into the customs and conventions of other 'times and spaces'. A historical 'psychoanalysis' is required here.

Regards

Edwin Anthony

Entry 33, dated 20000909

My reply to Pondicherry
The struggle to be good

Ethical reasoning is a tool that helps you to decide what to do in a given set of circumstances.

In most situations which are not problematic, conscience in fact will automatically prompt you to do what's right. Ethical reasoning comes in useful in the case of moral dilemmas.

Still, after arriving at a theoretical best solution, you need to translate this solution into action. How can ethics be blamed for man's frailty?

The point is that a religionist will consult his holy books to decide what to do. But holy books are written for a particular time and a particular culture. Myths and legends also abound in holy books. I prefer to place my trust in reasoning things out. But whether holy books or rational thinking, in the end, action still needs to be carried out. And that's where we falter.....being moral will always be a struggle.

And as you pointed out, there does seem to be universal moral principles which we can try to adhere to and which when interpreted sensibly is in the best interest of society. So little shifting needs to be done --- it is when moral dilemmas occur (eg euthanasia) that we may have to do some hard thinking.

Entry 32, dated 20000909

Pondicherry's posting
[witness] Morality ever shifting in one's life?

Just a thought: If ethics is so reliable (as in your posting) [see Entry 13], why is it that in one instance one can betray his friend , and the next instance he is still faithful to his wife?

The set of ethics that influences his relationship with his friend must surely be the same set of ethics that guides his relationship with his wife. Right? What sayeth you?

Entry 31 dated 20000909

My reply to sky
An interesting question

My thinking would be that it is not a religion in the literal sense (senses 1, 2 3 of your dictionary definition) but it could be a religion in the metaphorical sense (sense 4 of your dictionary definition -- as in "she was religiously devoted to her studies.")

I think the defining quality of any religion in the literal sense must involve the worship of an entity bigger than himself. It has thus often been said that Buddhism for instance, because it does not believe in a God, is not a religion but a philosophy.

But the issue is really a complex one because different people have different perceptions about their beliefs. So for many who do think of Buddha as some kind of God, Buddhism is indeed a religion and is commonly labelled as such.

I tend to think of secular humanism as an attitude of mind rather than as a religion. For more information on secular humanism, http://www.secularhumanism.org/ is one good source.

Entry 30 dated 20000909

skyocean's entry
Is 'Secular Humanism' really a 'Religion' in itself ???

What I saw in a Dictionary:

"religion. (1) BELIEF in one or more gods, esp. that they made the world and control it and give men life after death. (2) A PARTICULAR SYSTEM OF BELIEF and the worship, BEHAVIOUR, LIFESTYLE etc., CONNECTED WITH IT. (3) the life of a RELIGIOUS ie.person who has given his/her life to the service of God. (4) SOMETHING that one TAKES VERY SERIOUSLY, OFTEN AS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE. "

"god. (1) a being (one of many) which is worshipped, as one who made or rules over (a part of) the life of the world. (2) a person or THING TO WHICH GREAT IMPORTANCE IS GIVEN. (3) a person who likes to think that he is very important and should command obedience from others. "

Dear witness, going by any, some or all of the above definitions, would you consider 'secular humanism' to be a 'religion' in itself???

Entry 29 dated 20000909

individual's affirmation of my message
The Superman

I fully agree with witness! To quote my favourite philosopher (most other people hate him):

"...God is dead! The churches and temples are his sepulchres!" (FN)

I believe we make our own destiny, and there is no place for a divine being(s) if we are to achieve our utmost potential. Such a being and all its attendant commandments and the dogma of its curators and followers serve only as a "dangerous myth" (FN) to restrain the truly exceptional INDIVIDUAL in what he/she can attain. "Religion is the opium of the masses" (Karl Marx). It is "a denial of life" (FN)

On ethics and morality - "The Ubermensch (Superman) rises above the culture, ethics and morality of the herd. He CREATES his own culture, ethics and morality".

Who is this "most dangerous philosopher of our time"? FN - Friedrich Nietzsche!

Are we bold enough to leave behind this "dangerous myth" of religion and take that first step to becoming "The Superman"?

Entry 28 dated 20000909

My reply to redwind's message (Entry 8.2)
The hero lies in you

I agree that belief in God may frighten, or move or inspire some people to behave better, but these are by no means inevitable consequences.

There is also the question of which god or gods to believe in.

Generally, I am fairly sympathetic to the Buddhist ideal of man as potential superman (or loosely speaking, god), the pantheism of Hinduism and Taoism, and the humanism of Confucianism and the classical Greek philosophers.

I think that believing in anthropomorphic gods however do more harm than good -- these gods resemble humans too closely -- they are whimsical, they behave violently, they are power-hungry...and they do not hesitate to condemn unbelievers to eternal torment for the flimsiest of reasons.

I believe that we have a rich enough heritage of humanism to draw from in order to learn to be moral beings. In the age of modern science and technology, I see no reason whatsoever to rely on superstitions as moral anchors.

Entry 27 dated 20000910

My clarification to redwind
Hitler believed in god

The main point under discussion was whether belief in god is distinct from morality. Hitler professed himself to be a christian. Hence he clearly believes in god. But most people see him as immoral because he is racist. Hence my point that belief in god and morality does not necessarily go together.

Entry 26 dated 20000910

redwind's comment to me (Entry 11)
Hi Witness

Just a word about Hitler. What is the point you're trying to make in your second last paragraph? True. He proclaimed himself Christian. However, proclaiming yourself Christian does not make you a 'practicing' one, unless one was to consider just the ritual observations which, in itself, hardly qualifies one as a Christian.

I definitely agree with you that belief in God is different from being ethical or moral. The first may aid in the inculcation of the latter but is not a 'necessary cause'. However, as stated in my earlier posting, it helps.

Regards

Edwin Anthony

Entry 25 dated 20000910

My reply to redwind
I believe in ideals too

Ideals are fine with me. I am a fervent admirer of Confucius, of the Greek philosophers, of Gandhi, Budhha and intellectuals such as Sartre or Darwin or a host of others.

Religious ideals are something else altogether. Whilst I do admire Jesus, I doubt the claim that he is the son of god, because even the god concept is fraught with so much difficulties.

Not too sure about the concept of selfish interdependence though. Covey didn't mean it this way. What I admire about Covey's framework in fact is that it is basically principle-centred leadership. Don't we want everybody to be happy, if possible? Then we have to make the effort to think win-win. Surely better that than win-lose or lose-win?

Entry 24 dated 20000910

redwind's reply to me
Interdependence - to Witness

'Can't we depend on one another for support?'

Unfortunately, many a time, that is more like the blind leading the blind. An ideal is required as an additional guide. An ideal of a 'son of God' who loved us so much as to allow himself to nailed to a cross, an ideal of a Buddha who gave up his princely status and wealth in search of enlightenment, an ideal of a Confucius who chose to rather spend much of his years espousing the merits of social responsibility rather than just content himself with a high government post, etc, etc. These ideals are of immense relevance to our daily 'modern' lives as much as they were in their own times. Our path since our divergence from these ideals and our increasing dependence on our own 'wisdom' and reliance on other like-minded individuals has seen much strife in human-human and human-nature interactions.

Interdependence is good. No. It's great! Religion serves as guide in how this interdependence should be toned. However what we have here now is a 'selfish interdependence' where the 'other' is valued insofar as what i can 'get' out of him or her.

God helps those who helps themselves. Yes. But our 'helping ourselves' now seems to be quite frequently at the expense of another.

Regards

Edwin Anthony

Entry 23 dated 20000909

My reply to lincoln
Where's the connection?

Why does the fact that we are not perfect necessarily lead to reliance on religion? Can't we depend on one another for support?

I think Steven Covey in his book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" made an important point when he moved that the highest stage of maturity of humans is not independence but inter-dependence.

Even if you choose to believe in god, remember that God helps those who help themselves.

Entry 22 dated 20000909

lincoln soo's comment to jack's message (Entry 12)
Who dare claims he is ethical?

Humans cannot be totally ethical and moral in their lives. Unless of course they are not humans. It is becauseof that that we need God -a religion. Well at least the majority maybe with the exception of "philosophers". Yet some philosophers do believe in God.

Entry 21 dated 20000910 begins here:

My counter to jack
The purpose of punishment

Punishment supposedly serves as a deterrent, both for the perpetrator of the crime as well as for others.

Punishment could also be reformative; hopefully through undergoing the punishment, the criminal realises that he has done the wrong thing and will repent.

Punishment is traditionally also carried out for retributive purposes -- an eye for an eye -- or the revenge principle.

You can punish someone without in your mind condemning him in any way. There is this humble acknowledgement that if you had his genes and experienced what he experienced, you may be a criminal too. But for practical reasons, society has to be protected against criminals; hence the punishment. But no necessary condemnation.

Entry 20 dated 20000910 begins here:

jack's reply to me
What a wonderful world of no criminals

Yes, we can talk about whether there is free will or not .if there was indeed perfectly "free will" I would have chosen not to be borned! Right?

What a wonderful world of no criminals! In principle yes condemn the act, but not the criminal. By punishing the criminal for the act, are we necessarily condemning him? No. Like you said when one lives within a community or society there will always be rules to adhere to(the regulation of human behaviour). Inevitably for differing reasons some people will break the rules. So if punishing is deemed to be condemning then what should be done? Let the ones who commit the acts just continue as they are?

Personally I am against condemnation of any one, but I can see that in many cases punishment is necessary if persuasion, corrective counselling has failed and even so after punishment, counselling should continue.

After they have been punished and served their term and have been counselled, do we still continue to "condemn" them by excluding them from society proper by denying them jobs etc etc, now that is another issue.If we do, then we are condemning. People do make mistakes in their lives and they do need to be given that second or third chance.

Entry 19 dated 20000910 begins here:

My reply to jack
Condemn the act, not the criminal

jack...

Human behaviour is a complex issue -- can a person help doing what he does? I am not too sure even if there is such a thing as free will. If we are the products of our genes and our environment, where is the room for freedom of the will?

Practically speaking though, human behaviour needs to be regulated -- society needs to be protected against those who commit crimes, for instance. So we condemn negative acts and try to take measures to minimise the occurrence of such acts but I don't think that it is useful to condemn the person.

Isn't there something like such an attitude in the new testament too -- judge not lest ye be judged, remove the beam from your own eye before you try to remove the dust from the eyes of others etc...

Entry 18 dated 20000909 begins here

jack's counter to me
That's life..Moralising vs judgment and evaluation

In principle one should not be too quick to "moralise" about others without knowing all the facts of the case of the person's life. But as to evaluation and judgement, one is called upon to do this all the time. And sometimes evaluations and judgement can be wrong. And we learn from mistakes. It is part and parcel of daily living.

If one does not take a stand in an issue. It can be argued that the person is such a careful and fair or principled person, he does not like to judge others. Or is the person just airy fairy with no stand on the issue?

Entry 17 dated 20000909 begins here

My reply to jack
Let's not be too quick to judge others

Fair enough. It may be useful to make value judgements at times.

In the example of the doctor, it seems so simple because it is a made up example. In real life, it may not be so easy to pass judgement because the situation will be far more complex. So I wouldn't want to waste too much time passing judgements on others unless I must.

When I look at a criminal, I try not to judge him. Instead, I wonder if I will be that way too if I had his genes and was subjected to the same experiences as he.

It's hard as it is to decide what to do with our own lives without making unnecessary judgements about the lives of other people.

Entry 16 dated 20000909 begins here:

jack's reply to me
Passing judgement or evaluation!

But life is also like that! People will have opinions which hinges on evaluation or judgement as to good or bad right or wrong. That's just how society functions.

You can't have a nebulous situation. Nothing really good nothing really bad, nothing really right, nothing really wrong.

You said the "good doctor .... the bad husband" - that can be said to be a judgement right?

Entry 15 dated 20000909 begins here:

My counter to jack
The good doctor...

...is also a bad husband. Life's like that.

In the current book I am reading entitled "The Secrets of Love & Lust" (by Simon Andreae, Abacus Books, 2000), women may be said to be both Madonnas and Whores. Depending on the time of their menstrual cycles and their moods, their behaviour undergoes changes.

We are not robots you know. So the single label "ethical" is not enough to capture the whole person. Averaging out the qualities in this case would just be meaningless.

Why is it so important to pass judgement on anyone, anyway?

Entry 14 dated 20000909 begins here:

jack's rejoinder to me
(witness) reply in 19.1.1.2

In 19.1.1.2, I had already given you my reply. But I have yet to get a reply from you as to your thoughts about the"doctor"(my example given). Would you consider him ethical? morally right? morally right at times only? ethical at times? ethical in his professional life but not moral right in his personal life? Can we really compartmentalise his personal and professional life or do we average it out and say he is ethical on the whole?

Would you say he is an ethical person?

Entry 13 dated 20000909 begins here:

My reply to jack
Morality is not a constant attribute

But of course, no one's perfect. Morality as a human attribute is not something that is constant. Depending on time, place and circumstances, our behaviour may be said to be moral or immoral. It is more like "You behaved immorally when you betrayed the trust of your friend" but on another occasion, "You acted rightly when you remained faithful to your wife despite the opportunity to stray." The important thing about relying on ethics is that it encourages you to think rationally about your actions instead of just relying on your conscience.

But the original point I was trying to convey was that believing in god and being moral are not the same things. Do you agree with this view?

Entry 12 dated 20000909 begins here:

jack's reply to me
Ethics and Morality

Yes how many are" genuinely ethical " as you put it in all aspect of their lives? I can see that a person may be extremely professional and ethical about his work and his career. eg. a doctor who is ethical in his practice, but in his family life he is adulterous and a wife basher. So he may seem to be ethical in his professional life but under conventional standards, he is not a person of good morals. Would you still consider him an ethical person?

Entry 11 dated 20000909 begins here:

My reply to jackpolo
Ethical = Moral!!

jackpolo...

Being ethical is synonymous to being moral!

Here's proof from the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate On-line dictionary:

[[[Main Entry: mor·al / Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom Date: 14th century

1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action etc...

synonyms MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good....]]]

Of course, action speaks louder than words. One needs to walk the talk. But if one is genuinely ethical, then one is also being moral.

Belief in god however is quite different from being moral or ethical. Such a belief may frighten or move or inspire someone into being moral, but these reactions are not inevitable.

This proves that belief in God and morality are very different attributes, and one cannot assume that where the former belief exists, the latter is also the case.

Hitler is the perfect example of someone who believes in God and yet is immoral. Do you have some insider information that he doesn't believe in God? (That he proclaims himself to be a Christian on the other hand, is common knowledge.)

As for the issue of conscience, read my earlier posting on "What is conscience?" and see if you disagree.

Entry 10 dated 20000909 begins here:

jackpolo's reply to my message (Entry 5)
Hilter may have thought himself Christian maybe...but

I am not too sure if having a good conscience is a given. Are you saying that good and evil conscience is a given in people? (ie a conscience guided by good, and conscience guided by evil.) Then again you may ask what is good and what is evil-relative isn't it? Dependent on conventional standards, I would have thought.

True that morality may not necessarily go hand in hand with the belief in God. But as you said "People can be motivated to be moral because of their belief." Then if they are so motivated then they'll find it difficult to sleep, if not they 'll sleep alright despite the fact that they have doine wrong.

By the same token an ethical person may not necesarily be moral.

As for Hitler, he may have considered himself to be a Christian,maybe But being a Christian surely does not mean just calling yourself a Christian right? many people Christian and non-christian would have considered Hilter not a Christian.

Entry 9, dated 20000909 begins here:

My reply to pt 1 of redwind's message:
Conscience alone cannot ensure morality

Assuming that by conscience is meant the sum total of our nurturing and environmental influences, I absolutely agree with you about conscience. That is why my view is that it is not sufficient to rely on one's conscience -- it is the lowest common moral and cultural denominator. We have to be able to rise above our consciences sometimes.

Entry 8 dated 20000909 begins here:

redwind's double-barrelled reply to my message (Entry 5):
Belief in God Vs Morality - A thought, Witness 1

'Having a conscience is a given. Everybody cannot help but have a conscience'

But what is contained in this 'conscience' is the question. If the conscience is to be likened to Locke's 'tabula rasa'(a clean slate) on which the morals of a particular space and time are written, then we have to look into the moral content of that particular time and space. Customs and conventions are to an extent unique to a particular time and space as these, like the personality of any individual, are subject to change and evolution. This begs the question, evolution in 'what direction'. For instance, the concept of 'progress' itself has undergone redefinition through the ages and especially in the west.(with the conflict between secular and the religious, the scientific revolution and renaissance humanism) This in turn defined self-realisation and individual interpretation of 'progress' in their own lives. And again, in turn, our conscience. This interpretation may not necessarily bode well for the lot of humanity. There was an increasing emphasis on the individual, a mechanistic view of all phenomena, a subject-object division between humanity and nature, earthly gains and so on. For instance, in the colonial period, the 'conscience' of significant figures in the west thought slavery, extermination of peoples of ‘inferior cultures’ and deforestation justifiable. At the end of the day we have to inquire into the 'inclusiveness' of a person's conscience. Is there increasing focus on the self as opposed to the other? The 'content' is an important factor which points to the personality of the status quo.

Continued...

===================================

Belief in God Vs Morality 2

'Morality has to do with man's relations to his fellow man. No belief in God is necessary for a person to behave morally'.

I agree that belief in God is not necessary for a person to behave morally. However, I submit that belief in God helps inhibit ‘immoral’ behaviour and further ‘encourage’ moral behaviour. It serves as an additional restraining force especially in a society where self-interest and the Darwinian perspective (Spencer’s ‘survival of the fittest’ is relevant here) has significantly displaced earlier ideals of communality and social responsibility. As far as the law, customs and conventions are concerned, sanctions, when these are transgressed, are only suffered when one is ‘caught’. Belief in God however means that one is ‘watched’ all the time. That of course does not mean that all ‘believer’ do no evil. It just means that we have an additional restraining force. This is not to be underrated. I once argued with my mother saying that there was no point of people going to church or taking part in other religious activities as these very people were guilty of all kinds of ‘sins’ when they stepped out. She however said, “Have you considered the possibility that they may be even worse without these”. I must admit that it made me think.

In our ‘autonomous morality’(ref. Piaget’s theorizing on morality) we have to look at society’s motivational forces and the directions it provides. What are these motivational forces and directions? Japan is one example. It was considered to be one of the most progressive nations in Asian colonial history. Why? It got rid of its Buddhist and Taoist theology (even to the extent of burning down some of these temples) which discouraged exploitative tendencies in favour of State sponsored and manufactured Shintoism. This was done to pave the way for the successful diffusion of western Capitalism. Buddhism encouraged restraint, detachment and moderation, Taoism, a love for and unity with nature, Christianity, an other-worldliness and love for all, Hinduism, also a unity with nature, Confucianism, communality and social responsibility. All contained precepts that were antithetical with capitalist emphasis on self, greed and materialism. This historical movement inevitably affects the conscience of the individual. Self-realisation has become synonymous with the fulfillment of earthly desires. It has led to the widespread hedonism and consumerism which is the hallmark of our times. The self has been redefined along with its conscience. With the displacement of a religious ‘Nirvana’ of spirituality, love, moderation, detachment and altruism with one of ‘More, More and More’ and ‘I, Me and Mine’ in this world, we are left with the disconcerting question on its impact on our individual consciences.

I am a secular Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian, Taoist, etc. I believe in the significance of spiritual motivation and direction in human affairs.

A Thought….

Best Regards,

Edwin Anthony