For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men's efforts than good by their own. Those on the other hand who have taken a contrary course, and asserted that absolutely nothing can be known — whether it were from hatred of the ancient sophists, or from uncertainty and fluctuation of mind, or even from a kind of fullness of learning, that they fell upon this opinion — have certainly advanced reasons for it that are not to be despised; but yet they have neither started from true principles nor rested in the just conclusion, zeal and affectation having carried them much too far.
Let me rephrase to make it more general. Answering this question was essentially the goal of this book, so I will point to the section in the book that address key issues.
If we all perceive sensory things and emotional things differently; who among us is to be trusted as the arbiter of ethical truth? Understanding the correct ethical path is relatively easy, simply use the golden rule.
The first part of the book is relatively short and provides a proof of this axiom. The section on understanding ethics addresses how an individual or group can derive ethical truths.
There are baseline requirements for understanding ethics. The section on when things go wrong tries to address two common forms of malice. The section on personal framing addresses how we all see the world through skewed eyes. With ethical understanding we can hopefully see the world more clearly and help others to do the same.
Diving down the rabbit hole addresses your concerns straight on… at least I think so.
The driving analogy for ethics is used to illustrate through analogy the reality of a distribution of knowledge and understanding exists; which is a varied as the number of individuals.
You can train people to get better but they have to care enough about improvement to do so. Some care deeply, others are deeply apathetic.
In general the system works but it could always be improved. People and cultures vary in their development; the rules of the road vary a bit too. Good driving practices are timeless and transcend culture. The discussion on cultural memes provides a window in how leaders can get good people to do bad things.
I compared ethics to love because both exist in the mind, so they are hard to prove. Individuals and cultures acknowledge both love and ethics. Ethics is constant, ethical climates can ebb and flow. In sexy ethicsI discuss the how many of the seemingly relativistic moral codes as they apply to ethics often have core unchanging ethical principles that they are derived from.
I also acknowledge here and in other sections that cultures are typically the arbiters of justice; they define what is right and wrong, and the people implicitly agree by their obedience to the rules. People make up cultures and both have a tendency to be wrong a good deal of the time; so their is always room for improvement.
Again, this is where ethical knowledge and understanding is useful.
So hopefully that addresses the gray… On the God issue, that is partly more complex and partly simple. I highly doubt anyone of faith will read it because to do so would be against the first commandment. The power of the meme of God for self-sensorship truly amazes me. I was raised in the Catholic faith but was liberal enough to question it and my search for knowledge and understanding led me to seek a better understanding of the people and world around me.
By questioning and thinking about God I came to understand the meme. God is a powerful idea, but it is simply that. This book is in part thanks to religion, to an unethical corporate culture, and to the power of an inquisitive mind.
This was the second book I wrote, the first one was on corporate ethics; which has not been published yet. To discuss corporate ethics, I had to first define ethics. If you are concerned about questioning your faith, if the thought of that creates an inner fear, then I will let you in on a little secret; there is nothing to fear.
I have been to that mountain top, there is no boogie man; just your own fear. Let go of the fear and start asking questions… the world will light up. The simple answer to the God problem as it relates to ethics is two fold. Ethical knowledge has to be innate because otherwise we would lack free will.16 Comments.
Pinchas Eliyahu June 1, @ pm. Rob, It didn’t take a very convincing fake made with photo-shop software to fool you.
That photo has been circulating for a few years already. Our Founding Fathers were religious in a new way, the Judeo-Christian way, and they were the liberals of their day by deducing that our political and human rights come from a power higher than.
by Matt Slick 11/25/ A worldview is a set of beliefs used to understand the world. Everyone has a worldview. Everyone has a set of principles by which to judge right and wrong, and which guides them in everyday living.
The first line of figures gives the regular series, from 1 to The second reproduces this line doubly; first ascending, from the first figure of 18, and then returning from the second figure of For the first time in Christian thought, Christian ethics was viewed as encompassing business, government, law, politics, and military policy.
Modern Christian ethics has been shifting with various theological movements. Secular ethics is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, empathy, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from supernatural revelation or guidance—the source of ethics in many grupobittia.comr ethics refers to any ethical system that does not draw on the supernatural, and includes humanism, secularism and freethinking.