2ndRateMind

...dedication to the truth, however inconvenient that truth may be.... Best wishes, 2RM.

Best wishes, 2RM *AE Housman, A Shropshire Lad, 1896

Best wishes, 2RM *Rupert Brooke, Song. c1909.

...the care you put into your craftsmanship... Best wishes, 2RM.

... A posy of primroses, for your beloved, on Easter morning... Best wishes, 2RM.

...Giving what you can to help others get to a state where they can give what they can, to help others get to a state where they can give what they can, etc.... Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes. I think that is so. There is a defined ethical response to every possible given human situation. The thing that I am disposed to deny, however, is that every or any particular human knows all these defined responses. I think it to be our task to work out for ourselves what those responses might and should be. And that such an exercise, if we take it seriously, is good for our spiritual stature, upon which depends our prospects of immediate content and afterlife bliss. Best wishes, 2RM.

That's a good thought. Hold on to that. So, does the fact that humanity does not know the absolutely ethical (though some pretend to), necessarily mean that the ethical is vague, unspecific and imprecise? Best wishes, 2RM.

That's really sad. And has much to do with my suspicion of organised religion, that it has been, and is being, and forever can be, used to browbeat and intimidate perfectly decent people into a state of unethical submission. Quite how you can divorce ethical behaviour from just deserts defeats me, except in the case of sacrifice, where some moral agent voluntarily foregos justice for the sake of the good of others. But nevertheless, I think God will look kindly on such moral agents, they simply following the example of Christ. Fortunately, however, defense lawyers don't get to decide on who gets to go to heaven, and who doesn't. According to scripture, it is St Peter who holds those keys*, and I am sure they are safe in his hands, as Jesus entrusted them. Best wishes, 2RM. *Matthew 16:19 KJV

I agree that Christianity is about joy. Furthermore, as you pointed out in another thread, that it is about love. And, in my experience, love is about unimaginable joy, but also unimaginable pain. The net result of the mix is complete ecstasy, and that is where we find God, filled with the joy and pain and ecstasy that is total love. As for prosperity, well, that's nice, if it happens. But that is not what Christianity is about. Or, so I submit. Best wishes, 2RM.

Interesting. If ethics are a route to salvation, as I suggest in proposition 3 of the OP, do you think God would have deliberately left them vague and unspecific? Or do you think people might want them left vague and unspecific, simply because of some personal (say, financial) reason why they should have no need to comply? Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm not at all sure I know you well enough to judge. But the principle of charity bids me to presume the best of you, until proven differently. For the purposes of clarity, I regard the ethical and the moral to be somewhat along the lines of synonyms. Though, as far as common usage goes, I would accept that ethics has more of an academic tint, and morality more of a sexual connotation. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed so. There will always be free-loaders. Nevertheless, if one accepts propositions 2 and 3, then the free-loader is cheating themselves, as well as everyone else. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, what is the point of ethics? Why shouldn't we all live greedy, selfish lives and let the devil take the hindmost? I would argue that there are three main reasons to be ethical: 1) An ethical society is a better society to live in. 2) An ethical person is a happier, more fulfilled person. 3) An ethical person is 'saved', in the religious sense of salvation. It does strike me though, that we need to sort out amongst ourselves the point of being ethical, even before we attempt to discuss what ethical behaviour might be. Though each informs the other, I think one needs to start out with a transparent agenda. Comments, welcome Best wishes, 2RM.

Actually, I'm quite happy to do that. But do not think he will get an easy time! It's not as if I am getting one, from you lot. Best wishes, 2RM.

That's interesting. Maybe I need another theory! But meanwhile, I still think that those who vote for conservative, small government, low intervention policies are those who stand to benefit from them, personally, by way of tax minimisation, while those who vote centre and centre left (the concepts do not describe the same political distinctions in the UK and the USA), tend to realise that, maybe for the first time in all of history, we have the potential worldwide wealth to eradicate absolute poverty, and save many lives, if only we decided to do so. That, said, this topic has been something of a digression from the main theme of the thread, so I shall let you all respond with the last word, and try to bring the focus back to something approaching the OP, which was: should adulterers and homosexuals be stoned to death? And if not, what should we do about it, when they are? Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. I can only speak as I find. In justification, I detect more political and media activity around abortion than starvation. And I would point out that conservatives tend be rich, and those who die of hunger, poor. If the conservatives were a little less rich, and the poor a little less poor; well, problem solved. Whereas banning abortion is just a matter of the exercise of political power, which costs much less. Best wishes, 2RM.

The latest figures I have suggest that people die in approximately equal quantities from malnutrition and hunger related disease as do from abortions. But conservatives tend not to worry about the former, only the latter. So, it's not just one post-modern holocaust we need to tackle, but two, and I see no reason why they should not receive equal weighting. Maybe you do? Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, if that is a hypothesis, it seems we shall soon be able to test it. Due to Brexit (Britain leaving the EU), it looks as if our economy is about to 'tank' and our social order challenged. We shall see if the extreme left, and the extreme right, do well out of the process, or not. Or whether, as I suspect, the pragmatic but essentially decent character of the people of these islands weathers the coming storm without the necessity to scapegoat minorities. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed. Thus far I have laid out binary options: agree or disagree with the principles at stake; trade or do not trade. But of course, in the real world things are more subtle and nuanced. We might agree or disagree strongly, slightly, or have no distinct opinion as to a nation's policies. Similarly with our trading options; we might place no restrictions at all, or only restrictions on weaponry and military equipment that might be used to oppress the population, or restrictions on commercial goods and raw materials necessary to the functioning of the economy in question, or restrictions on all goods and services that are not food, or medical, or educational. I think most people, given these spectra of possibilities, will be able to find some position that they think apposite to the situation in Brunei. Perhaps, therefore, using our resources in the 'most efficient and productive manner' possible, would be to deny them, in measured reaction, to authoritarian regimes. And so to take down governments that flout human rights, in the pursuit a better world for all. Or perhaps you all see things differently? ⁉️ Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed. You have made a significant point. The best I can suggest is that we should learn from our moral errors, not that we should consider morality to be whatever the subjective expression of this despotic rule, or that. And, if we have more than a certain degree of confidence in our moralities, we should be prepared to do, as well as think and speak. Albeit with feedback mechanisms built in to our policies, to help us decide if they are net beneficial to humanity, or net detrimental. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yup. I agree. But if there is a better way to demonstrate the incompatibility between two nation states' moral points of view than ceasing to trade with them (which in absolute terms will inevitably hit the rich and powerful more seriously than the poor and powerless) I have yet to hear of that proposal. The underlying question is; are the richest nations in the world, largely in the (allegedly) Christian West, prepared to take the hit in their wallets for the sake of their moral principles, or not? Put this way, there are four options: Brunei law is not against my principles, and I will trade with them Brunei law is not against my principles, but I will not trade with them. Brunei law is against my principles, but I will trade with them Brunei law is against my principles, so I will not trade with them Take your pick. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed we have. And a slew of prophets, as well, some of which have had the presumption to claim to be the second coming. Philosophy, however, is more about asking questions, and deciding which questions are right to investigate, and clarifying their meaning, than providing answers. Once it is clear what the question is, and how to answer it, philosophy hands the issue over to science. Nevertheless, even in the most difficult of enquiries, gradually over those thousands of years, philosophers have made progress, and I recommend them to you. Best wishes, 2RM

I don't think so. But this is the opposition I suggested in the thread title 'Principle vs Expediency'. You are entirely entitled to your own point of view; it is a tricky subject to tackle. Nevertheless, if some nation is deliberately oppressing it's citizens, I think we have a case to make for ceasing trade until they cease that oppression. Indeed. I have never denied that my morals are imperfect. I just think that everyone else's are, as well. As to which and whose version of morality is more superior, in terms of being more accurate, well, I find that to be determined by reason, as opposed to revelation. But I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise, if there is any such justification. Best wishes, 2RM.

It's a class thing, in the UK. The rich (or those with such pretensions) call dinner, lunch. and supper, dinner. I have to admit, however, and with no little embarrassment, that I have been brought up to refer to lunch and dinner, despite the fact that I do not intend to become rich, and if I ever did in some accidental way, would use the good fortune to do what I could lift the abject poor sustainably out of poverty with my windfall. But such are the pettinesses of the class struggle, and how we seek to distinguish 'people like us', from 'those like them'. Presumably the division is meant to separate people who deserve class advantage, from those that don't, and thus justify a lack of charity. Best wishes, 2RM.