Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre  another of his about definitions (search for it, I'm too lazy to find the link now) |
Here you go:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/s...efinition.html Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre In other words, sure, we can address questions of morals and ethics through the agreement of key assumptions, and the propositions and statements that follow from them, logical or otherwise. We can do that with any question, scientific or otherwise. But we if disagree on those key assumptions we'll get nowhere in trying to reach the same conclusion via the same path. |
Examples:
Judeo-Christian:
Primary Assumption: God is the Ultimate Lawgiver.
Logical Conclusion: That which is Moral or Ethical is anything which God condones, as stated by his Commandments (of which there are way more than 10, btw). Further understanding is gained through revelation.
Humanism:
Primary Assumption: Human Life is Sacred; moreover, Satisfaction is Aimed toward.
Logical Conclusion: That Which is Moral or Ethical is anything that preserves, or at least does not destroy, Human Life.
Satanism:
Primary Assumption: The Individual is Answerable only to Himself.
Logical Conclusion: That which is Moral or Ethical is anything which the Individual finds pleasure in.
Subjective Reality:
Primary Assumption: The Universe is a Manifestation of a single Consciousness.
Logical Conclusion: That which is Moral or Ethical is anything which that single Consciousness believes to be so.
Nationalism:
Primary Assumption: The Nation is the most Important Institution.
Logical Conclusion: That which is Moral or Ethical is anything done in service to the Nation.
As it happens, I don't particularly like any of these. But I wanted to show the variety of directions you can come from. Also notice that it is possible to come to the same conclusion under each of these, given the right circumstances. A Nationalist will agree with the Christian that you should not murder a citizen. However, the former will say, "Because he belongs to the Nation," whereas the latter will say, "Because God has commanded we not murder." They're willing to shake hands, but when the Nationalist starts torturing foreigners for information, the Christian gets a little antsy. And few people are exclusively one, of course; which makes it very nicely confusing.
And no, I'm not going to spell out each argument.
I have limits to how comprehensive my understanding is.