So.... we'll do what we can. In the meantime, there was a side conversation that has nothing to do with scientists. :)
At 02:11 PM 5/31/2005, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>On 5/31/05, Jim Devine <jdevine03 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > JF writes:>the problem with theists is that they can't see that their
> > idea of god actually undermines ethics<
> >
> > in 25 words or less, could you explain how the idea of god undermines
> ethics?
> > JD
>
>i didn't say the "the" idea of god undermines ethics, only that
>"their" idea of god undermines ethics.
i know this is what the sentence Jim quoted says, but the more interesting claim was what you said prior to that:
>god is not a matter of ethics, either, and the problem with theists is
>that they can't see that their idea of god actually undermines ethics in
>much the same way that it undermines science. for all kant's myriad
>problems, i think he hit this one on the head.
so, was the first part of the sentence was a mistake. you do think that god is about ethics?
>there is more than one way of coming at this, but the main one is: a
>religion wherein you have to behave a certain way out of fear of hell
>or hope of heaven actually undermines any notion that you do what is
>right because it is the right thing to do, rather than for a reward or
>to avoid punishment.* this is pretty much straight kant, except that i
>would say you don't have to buy into the whole kantian deontological
>ethics in order to accept and make use of this argument.
so, when we act certain ways out of fear of punishment and the desire for reward, this can't be ethical or, rather, it undermines ethics.
>*in arguments, theists also like to allude to MLK to the effect that
>character (= ethics) is what you do when no one's watching, but in
>fact, for such people, god is *always* watching, and so there is no
>opportunity to demonstrate character (i.e., to be ethical). i have
>encountered this kind of argument in class more than once.
and you reject this, too, because it undermines ethics?
Mead and Freud and Piaget and Kohlberg (who followed Kant) all developed secularized versions of this: We internalize society. Society is always watching. WE internatlize because of myriad small exchanges in which we are rewarded or punished, or observe those we love and care about rewarded and punished, for moral behavior or moral norms.
"good girl, give daddy a hug." "bad boy, go to your room"
The fundamental message is: you are welcomed into the fold and even get extra 'hugs' and warm fuzzies because you act according to the prevailing moral norms, or you are banished to your room -- removed from society.
So, we come to act according to the moral codes of our society, families, communities, reference groups, profession, etc. because society is inside us (which is what we end up worshiping with the cult of individualism, we just mistake society for what we believe is our "private" unique self.
So, these approaches to explaining the psychology of moral consciousness are, likewise, undermining ethics?
Kelley
"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
-- rwmartin