Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] RE: [philosophyfaith] God & Morality

Expand Messages
  • David Leon
    ... From: shari hyder To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:37 PM
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 29, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "shari hyder" <hydersjmj@...>
      To: <philosophyfaith@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:37 PM
      Subject: [existlist] RE: [philosophyfaith] God & Morality


      > Mark,

      > First and foremost, thanks heaps for comments/suggestions. I took it all
      > on board, and in the opening paragraph, inserted the following:

      > There are God dependent views on morality, and others that are perceived
      to be totally independent of god(s). The former identifies with
      Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and various sects within Eastern Religion.
      The latter identifies with duty-based theories, virtue ethics,
      Utilitarianism, consequentialist theories, Darwinist Theory, and social
      > harmony type rules.

      [I'm just throwing this out.]
      ..None of which are moralities. There is no argument against anything
      without some kind of higher reality. Some Greek thinkers knew this, to a
      non-unified-gods degree, and by the time of the founding of the United
      States, for instance, some US thinkers and "founders" knew this to a basic
      degree. They didn't argue about God's existence, instead keeping the
      arguments to who God might be or what is and is not profain to say about
      "him" or even "it". Thomas Jefferson's influence in the Declaration of
      Independence document, about "rights", for instance, appealed to a "Creator"
      because of the impossibility of NOT appealing to a . Somewhere along the
      way, we've spit on some of the better thoughts that some men have had in the
      past about politics and rights and God, because of religious backwashes that
      have happened. But there HAS been some interesting thought and political
      movement, having inherent to them relatively freer thoughts about God. We
      have turned on that thought sometimes and thought that it requires us to be
      "religious" (weighty), when that is NOT the good in what they were
      progressing or progressing towards. Yeah, sure, "religion" this and religion
      that. But at some point, can we get back round to discussing and furthering
      thoughts on God, instead of religion? ..It's just a question...honestly.

      If God is "religion". If God is "weight", if God is "expectation", then
      nevermind, forget about it...throw it all in the fire, cuz I'm going to have
      to be one who "to the believers" is an atheist and to himself is
      just..here..trying to enjoy life.. with maybe a little badass twist. ;)
      But...really, c'mon. Beyond some of the moronic crap that goes on out there,
      the reality is that God is not ultimately expectations, and it is actually
      that that christianity or the teacher Jesus or whatever) is about. And even
      if CHRISTIANITY is cloudy to most people (and it is), even as history and
      studies of differing and evolving ways of dealing with religion, and they
      dont get that (gospel - 'good news' - 'not of expectations') out of it..well
      then fine! Throw IT in the fire too! But just...God is more real than
      misunderstanding and "weight" and even
      things-we-haven't-individually-yet-experienced.

      Can we move on?
      I'm not begging us to become something instantly and understand everything.
      I'm just encouraging anyone, existentially, in a given moment or
      experience - Dont get hung up too much on whatever everyone or anyone else
      thinks or expects. It's important, yes - those things need to be put into
      perspective too. But that will come on our individual levels as we learn to
      say, not "It doesn't matter what you think", but "I'm not primarily
      concerned with what ANYBODY thinks. I need to learn a little bit of reality
      here."

      Yeah, ok, so this was just my last little thing to do before I leave the
      office and go home for the day.

      gooday,
      Dave


      > Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) for example, argued that
      moral standards are necessary human conventions which keep us out of a
      perpetual state of war. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), and David Hume
      (1711-1776) argued that morality is based on human instinct. Jeremy
      Bentham (1748-1832) argued for the outcomes of one's actions determining
      their moral status; not one's intentions.

      With Dostoevsky, I added the following plus the time he lived
      (1821-1881):

      In his time, Dostoevsky clearly saw the foundations of philosophical
      foundations of Christian ethics crumbling around him.


      The bibliography reads:

      Berg, Jonathan. (1991). How could ethics depend on religion? P. Singer
      (Ed), A Companion to Ethics (pp 525-532). Blackwell.

      Plato, Euthyphro

      Sinclair, Gregg. (1957). The Upanishads. Radhakrishnan S & Moore C
      (Ed) A Source Book in Indian Philosophy (pp 37-39). Princeton University
      Press.

      Stevenson L & Haberman D. (1998). Ten Theories of Human Nature. Oxford
      University Press.


      Apart from adding a couple of sentences to the closing paragraph, I have
      left it as is, as I am confined to 2000 words. Although Confucianism and
      Hinduism are not mentioned within this Paper's syllabus, I felt strongly
      enough on both to make comment on the same. I also had to bear in mind
      this is not a paper on existentialism, thus my brief mention on
      Kierkegaard is influenced by discussions on this List. Far as I know,
      Auckland University don't do Kierkegaard.

      My biggest flaw is that I tend to assume the reader knows what I am
      thinking, and although the paragraphs may appear disjointed to the
      reader, it is not to me. Therein lie the existential problem of
      different minds. My Economist mate Brent agrees with your comments, that
      is, am I answering the question? Let's just say I'd be extremely worried
      if I am given an "A" grade for this. :) :) :) :)

      Still, the time taken by you is appreciated. I like your suggestion of
      using different coloured markers. Something to bear in mind and to
      practice.

      shari

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mark and Bev Tindall [mailto:tindall@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 10:02 p.m.
      To: philosophyfaith@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [philosophyfaith] God & Morality

      Shari wrote:


      *******************************************************
      Is the existence of God relevant for moral philosophy?

      ********************************************************

      Your essay has improved a lot! Well done. :-)

      I have highlighted some of the areas for improvement.





      ---
      Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003


      ---
      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

      TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.