OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 04:40:57 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ethics - Morality  (Read 528 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« on: February 20, 2012, 03:50:51 AM »

What is Ethics - Morality ? Which is the standard for it/them?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2012, 04:40:12 AM »

Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2012, 01:33:58 PM »

Ethics and morality is what people or religious institutions/God have determined as a pure way to live.

The standard is defined by the people (and their culture) or religion.

Implementation of morals is very often voluntary, but many morals have become laws.

Thou shalt not steal (pretty much law everywhere)
Thou shalt not murder (law pretty much everywhere)

The statute of limitations (for sexual relations) it is legal at 12 years old in Mexico. 
In America, depending by the state and peoples moral beliefs, it is usually between 16 to 18.

Then there are many things we do by choice based on moral religious teaching such as the golden rule.  But these things can also apply to law as well.

Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2012, 01:48:32 PM »

Isn`t ethics like something universal?Or shouldn`t it be like something universal?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2012, 01:56:57 PM »

Isn`t ethics like something universal?Or shouldn`t it be like something universal?

Paging Kant . . .

No. There is not much worse than a "universal morality".
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2012, 02:02:53 PM »

Isn`t ethics like something universal?Or shouldn`t it be like something universal?

Paging Kant . . .

No. There is not much worse than a "universal morality".

so which is the standard for them?

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2012, 02:14:37 PM »

Isn`t ethics like something universal?Or shouldn`t it be like something universal?

Paging Kant . . .

No. There is not much worse than a "universal morality".

so which is the standard for them?



Even FP's quote of the Gospel is obviously problematic. You can't see how some universal "standard" could be problematic in "morals"?

It is a broad and general question you are asking. Have YOU thought much about this?

Most people don't spend much pondering such nonsense outside undergrad departments thankfully. Usually people start asking such broad question in relation to something specific, thankfully.

Avoiding the specifis and trying to find some general rule is a great way to avoid reality.

So do you really care about such broad topics? If so, you can google morality and find the canon governing thought on such things or if you are struggling with something specific you find a trusted person or an internet board to discuss it with.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2012, 09:44:53 PM »

Isn`t ethics like something universal?Or shouldn`t it be like something universal?

Paging Kant . . .

No. There is not much worse than a "universal morality".

so which is the standard for them?



Even FP's quote of the Gospel is obviously problematic. You can't see how some universal "standard" could be problematic in "morals"?

It is a broad and general question you are asking. Have YOU thought much about this?

Most people don't spend much pondering such nonsense outside undergrad departments thankfully. Usually people start asking such broad question in relation to something specific, thankfully.

Avoiding the specifis and trying to find some general rule is a great way to avoid reality.

So do you really care about such broad topics? If so, you can google morality and find the canon governing thought on such things or if you are struggling with something specific you find a trusted person or an internet board to discuss it with.


Relativism is a good way to avoid morality.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2012, 09:49:30 PM »

Isn`t ethics like something universal?Or shouldn`t it be like something universal?

Paging Kant . . .

No. There is not much worse than a "universal morality".

so which is the standard for them?



Even FP's quote of the Gospel is obviously problematic. You can't see how some universal "standard" could be problematic in "morals"?

It is a broad and general question you are asking. Have YOU thought much about this?

Most people don't spend much pondering such nonsense outside undergrad departments thankfully. Usually people start asking such broad question in relation to something specific, thankfully.

Avoiding the specifis and trying to find some general rule is a great way to avoid reality.

So do you really care about such broad topics? If so, you can google morality and find the canon governing thought on such things or if you are struggling with something specific you find a trusted person or an internet board to discuss it with.


Relativism is a good way to avoid morality.

Using relativism is a great way to avoid thinking.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,269


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2012, 11:08:26 PM »

My priest and I were discussing this yesterday; we agreed -as most Orthodox Christians would- that Orthodoxy has no ethical theory as such.

Philosophical ethics today is in a crisis mode characterized more by Postmodern malaise than the now quaint Enlightenment pontifications of yesteryear about the advent of a "scientific ethics," which found its first major naysayer in the person of Friedrich Nietzsche (cf. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil). Bonhoeffer actually thought Nietzsche did Christianity a service of great value in debunking the Enlightenment mentality of "scientific ethics" whether of duty, utility, sentiment, etc. Bonhoeffer opined that it was the fruit of *knowledge of good* as well as knowledge of evil which was forbidden to Adam in the Garden. For this reason he concluded that the notion of Aquinas, that God created us with *knowledge of the good* as a part of the Imago Dei, was the devil's lie. It is arguable -many do argue it- that the grounding of ethics (e.g. Natural Law) and theology (e.g. Natural Theology) on the sand of discursive reason led straight to the death of God and ethics, with as its ultimate consequence the death of man -though this God who "died" (culturally/intellectually in the academic West) was the God of the philosophers rather than the living God of Abraham, to use Pascal's phrase.

On the other hand, scripture tells us that God places his law into our heart and that we are without excuse. Does this contradict what Genesis said about the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good as well as evil? Not necessarily, if the heart is not the same organ as discursive reason. "Why is the truth, it would seem, revealed to some and not to others? Is there a special organ for receiving revelation from God? Yes, though usually we close it and do not let it open up: God’s revelation is given to something called a loving heart” Fr.Seraphim Rose, God's Revelation to the Human Heart).

The case made by Nietzsche, that apart from God man stands in a situation "beyond good and evil" with respect to what can be grounded by autonomous man in philosophical ethics even forms an important part of the apologetic of Roman Catholic writer Hans Kung in his book Does God Exist? (a work written during the period when the Vatican still approved of him enough to bankroll a staff of scholars to aid him in researching his book) where he concluded that modern secular man is in an epistemic and existential situation where he must either choose God or nihilism (an argument not all moral philosophers or even theologians would accept, but Kung's arguably binary thinking aside the difficulty of scientific ethics remains as problematic -more so- than when Nietsche pressed it so forcefully). But rather than getting bogged down in the philosophical angle, what might theology suggest?

What we relate to (or do not) from a theological perspective -whether it is "subjectively apprehended" or not- is something Incarnational and Personal (or the lack thereof). Fr. Andrew Angiorus's brilliantly observes the presence or absence of love in our hearts is not at its root epistemological (though it may be *congruent* to epistemic themes) but psychological:

"'Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts' (Rom 1:24). Generally, atheists and agnostics are talking about themselves when they talk about the absence of God. They simply express their personal subjective truth (that their souls are empty) in an objective way and try to generalize their experience. In other words, there is no theology, or even philosophy here, it is just their own ill or deficient psychology, which is what atheism is... In the Scriptures Christ says clearly that only the pure in heart will see God. In other words, intellectuals, examiners and professors will never understand God, if their minds are not pure... How do we know if someone has a pure heart? The pure heart is evidenced by the way we live. As Peter says, a person devoted to the Lord “does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God” (1 Peter 4:2); "Who may ascend the hill of the LORD? Who may stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to an idol or swear by what is false.He will receive blessing from the LORD and vindication from God his Savior" (Ps 24:3-5)." -Fr Andrew Anglorus

Yes there is a crisis of scientific philosophical ethics in the sense of the medieval and Enlightenment programs to ground ethics in discursive reason. But there is a living God who knows the thoughts and intentions of each heart and is nearer to all of us than our own skin, though our perception of this may be darkened by sin. It is because God is living and near that we are left without excuse.

John 12:35: "Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going."

Those who claim to be moral relativists or nihilists, if in their hearts they can accept that it is the same difference ethically (aside from personal consequence) to on the one hand teach a young babe what colors are, or that every star is a sun, or on the other hand to feed them to their dog rather than make the long trip for a bag of Purina, have become darkened, in a situation analogous to story of a public debate in Hyde Park (London) as told by William Lane Craig:

‘People tell me there is life after death; but I can’t see it! People tell me there is a heaven and hell; but I can’t see them!’ After he had finished, another man struggled to the soap box. He began, ‘People tell me that there is green grass all around us; but I can’t see it. People tell me there are trees nearby; but I can’t see them. People tell me there is a blue sky above; but I can’t see it. You see …I’m blind.” (William Lane Craig, The Son Rises, p. 19).
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 11:29:13 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2012, 05:11:39 AM »

Isn`t ethics like something universal?Or shouldn`t it be like something universal?

Paging Kant . . .

No. There is not much worse than a "universal morality".

so which is the standard for them?



Even FP's quote of the Gospel is obviously problematic. You can't see how some universal "standard" could be problematic in "morals"?

It is a broad and general question you are asking. Have YOU thought much about this?

Most people don't spend much pondering such nonsense outside undergrad departments thankfully. Usually people start asking such broad question in relation to something specific, thankfully.

Avoiding the specifis and trying to find some general rule is a great way to avoid reality.

So do you really care about such broad topics? If so, you can google morality and find the canon governing thought on such things or if you are struggling with something specific you find a trusted person or an internet board to discuss it with.


I was interested from the religious point of view, esspecially the Orthodox.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2012, 05:12:32 AM »

My priest and I were discussing this yesterday; we agreed -as most Orthodox Christians would- that Orthodoxy has no ethical theory as such.

Philosophical ethics today is in a crisis mode characterized more by Postmodern malaise than the now quaint Enlightenment pontifications of yesteryear about the advent of a "scientific ethics," which found its first major naysayer in the person of Friedrich Nietzsche (cf. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil). Bonhoeffer actually thought Nietzsche did Christianity a service of great value in debunking the Enlightenment mentality of "scientific ethics" whether of duty, utility, sentiment, etc. Bonhoeffer opined that it was the fruit of *knowledge of good* as well as knowledge of evil which was forbidden to Adam in the Garden. For this reason he concluded that the notion of Aquinas, that God created us with *knowledge of the good* as a part of the Imago Dei, was the devil's lie. It is arguable -many do argue it- that the grounding of ethics (e.g. Natural Law) and theology (e.g. Natural Theology) on the sand of discursive reason led straight to the death of God and ethics, with as its ultimate consequence the death of man -though this God who "died" (culturally/intellectually in the academic West) was the God of the philosophers rather than the living God of Abraham, to use Pascal's phrase.

On the other hand, scripture tells us that God places his law into our heart and that we are without excuse. Does this contradict what Genesis said about the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good as well as evil? Not necessarily, if the heart is not the same organ as discursive reason. "Why is the truth, it would seem, revealed to some and not to others? Is there a special organ for receiving revelation from God? Yes, though usually we close it and do not let it open up: God’s revelation is given to something called a loving heart” Fr.Seraphim Rose, God's Revelation to the Human Heart).

The case made by Nietzsche, that apart from God man stands in a situation "beyond good and evil" with respect to what can be grounded by autonomous man in philosophical ethics even forms an important part of the apologetic of Roman Catholic writer Hans Kung in his book Does God Exist? (a work written during the period when the Vatican still approved of him enough to bankroll a staff of scholars to aid him in researching his book) where he concluded that modern secular man is in an epistemic and existential situation where he must either choose God or nihilism (an argument not all moral philosophers or even theologians would accept, but Kung's arguably binary thinking aside the difficulty of scientific ethics remains as problematic -more so- than when Nietsche pressed it so forcefully). But rather than getting bogged down in the philosophical angle, what might theology suggest?

What we relate to (or do not) from a theological perspective -whether it is "subjectively apprehended" or not- is something Incarnational and Personal (or the lack thereof). Fr. Andrew Angiorus's brilliantly observes the presence or absence of love in our hearts is not at its root epistemological (though it may be *congruent* to epistemic themes) but psychological:

"'Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts' (Rom 1:24). Generally, atheists and agnostics are talking about themselves when they talk about the absence of God. They simply express their personal subjective truth (that their souls are empty) in an objective way and try to generalize their experience. In other words, there is no theology, or even philosophy here, it is just their own ill or deficient psychology, which is what atheism is... In the Scriptures Christ says clearly that only the pure in heart will see God. In other words, intellectuals, examiners and professors will never understand God, if their minds are not pure... How do we know if someone has a pure heart? The pure heart is evidenced by the way we live. As Peter says, a person devoted to the Lord “does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God” (1 Peter 4:2); "Who may ascend the hill of the LORD? Who may stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to an idol or swear by what is false.He will receive blessing from the LORD and vindication from God his Savior" (Ps 24:3-5)." -Fr Andrew Anglorus

Yes there is a crisis of scientific philosophical ethics in the sense of the medieval and Enlightenment programs to ground ethics in discursive reason. But there is a living God who knows the thoughts and intentions of each heart and is nearer to all of us than our own skin, though our perception of this may be darkened by sin. It is because God is living and near that we are left without excuse.

John 12:35: "Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going."

Those who claim to be moral relativists or nihilists, if in their hearts they can accept that it is the same difference ethically (aside from personal consequence) to on the one hand teach a young babe what colors are, or that every star is a sun, or on the other hand to feed them to their dog rather than make the long trip for a bag of Purina, have become darkened, in a situation analogous to story of a public debate in Hyde Park (London) as told by William Lane Craig:

‘People tell me there is life after death; but I can’t see it! People tell me there is a heaven and hell; but I can’t see them!’ After he had finished, another man struggled to the soap box. He began, ‘People tell me that there is green grass all around us; but I can’t see it. People tell me there are trees nearby; but I can’t see them. People tell me there is a blue sky above; but I can’t see it. You see …I’m blind.” (William Lane Craig, The Son Rises, p. 19).

So what is ethics?What is the standard of ethics?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2012, 06:14:16 AM »

Isn`t ethics like something universal?Or shouldn`t it be like something universal?

Paging Kant . . .

No. There is not much worse than a "universal morality".

so which is the standard for them?



Even FP's quote of the Gospel is obviously problematic. You can't see how some universal "standard" could be problematic in "morals"?

It is a broad and general question you are asking. Have YOU thought much about this?

Most people don't spend much pondering such nonsense outside undergrad departments thankfully. Usually people start asking such broad question in relation to something specific, thankfully.

Avoiding the specifis and trying to find some general rule is a great way to avoid reality.

So do you really care about such broad topics? If so, you can google morality and find the canon governing thought on such things or if you are struggling with something specific you find a trusted person or an internet board to discuss it with.


Relativism is a good way to avoid morality.

Using relativism is a great way to avoid thinking.

Thinking is a great way to avoid a moral absolutes.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2012, 10:45:54 AM »

Isn`t ethics like something universal?Or shouldn`t it be like something universal?

Paging Kant . . .

No. There is not much worse than a "universal morality".

so which is the standard for them?



Even FP's quote of the Gospel is obviously problematic. You can't see how some universal "standard" could be problematic in "morals"?

It is a broad and general question you are asking. Have YOU thought much about this?

Most people don't spend much pondering such nonsense outside undergrad departments thankfully. Usually people start asking such broad question in relation to something specific, thankfully.

Avoiding the specifis and trying to find some general rule is a great way to avoid reality.

So do you really care about such broad topics? If so, you can google morality and find the canon governing thought on such things or if you are struggling with something specific you find a trusted person or an internet board to discuss it with.


Relativism is a good way to avoid morality.

Using relativism is a great way to avoid thinking.

Thinking is a great way to avoid a moral absolutes.

One of many reasons more people should do it.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2012, 06:32:43 PM »

Which situations are we talking about, if considering no absolutes? Or perhaps, what do you consider an absolute?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2012, 07:06:35 AM »

(didn't mean amoral -- typo, sorry)
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.086 seconds with 43 queries.