Every single person on this planet, no matter the religion or lack of one, no matter the devoutness or lack thereof, applies a moral compass to his or her beliefs and actions.
Where does your moral compass point to in regards to issues like elective abortion? I'm interested in seeing how your approach to ethics instructs you.
If I understood your essay correctly, your system of ethics can't resolve the issue due to its metaphysical nature. And so, the issue of abortion will be decided by whichever side has the most votes. What other issues of morality can your ethics not address due to that limitation?
You're engaging in a "begging the question" fallacy. It's not "my" system of ethics. Ethics are the product of societal evolution - that's the point of the article and the blog in its entirety.
I could tell you that "my" system of ethics allows for murder, but that would make me an outlier and, if I actually followed through, would see me in prison.
I could also tell you that "my" system of ethics allows for slavery. Which would make me a repeater of at least one element of Biblical ethics.
I'm puzzled then. What system of ethics are you referring to? If I want to know whether an action I'm contemplating is moral or not then what should I be looking at? If I understand you correctly, different societies could have different systems of ethics. I recall from my research done to deal with holocaust deniers that there were Germans who believed that it was morally wrong to save Jews from the death camps. Were they behaving morally since they were conforming to their society's understanding of what is right and wrong?
We've had this conversation so many times. Look around you. There are common themes in societies around the world and across history. We don't need a book to tell us not to kill, steal, or perjure, because our evolutionary wiring directs us toward those values.
Ethics evolve, but evolution is not arbitrary. Evolution selects what works better.
You also know full well that there are gray areas and nuances in ethics, on which reasonable people of common mind can disagree. Religion certainly has not solved that, nor can it. There are too many contradictions in scripture.
We keep on having this conversation because I am not satisfied with your answer. For example, you agree that any issue involving metaphysics such as abortion is not amenable to your approach. Furthermore, I question your reliance upon evolution as a basis for morality. In my opinion, it's inadequate for that purpose because evolution deals with what is instead of what should be. If a species can adapt to its environment then it survives. Otherwise, it does not. Evolution does not care either way. Behaviors like killing, stealing and perjury may actually provide an advantage to a person or society vis a vis others leading to their survival compared to more "moral" persons and societies. If the Nazis had prevailed, then would killing Jews be considered moral?
Very well written and imminently logical.
Where does your moral compass point to in regards to issues like elective abortion? I'm interested in seeing how your approach to ethics instructs you.
https://therootsofliberty.substack.com/p/the-unanswerable-question
If I understood your essay correctly, your system of ethics can't resolve the issue due to its metaphysical nature. And so, the issue of abortion will be decided by whichever side has the most votes. What other issues of morality can your ethics not address due to that limitation?
You're engaging in a "begging the question" fallacy. It's not "my" system of ethics. Ethics are the product of societal evolution - that's the point of the article and the blog in its entirety.
I could tell you that "my" system of ethics allows for murder, but that would make me an outlier and, if I actually followed through, would see me in prison.
I could also tell you that "my" system of ethics allows for slavery. Which would make me a repeater of at least one element of Biblical ethics.
I'm puzzled then. What system of ethics are you referring to? If I want to know whether an action I'm contemplating is moral or not then what should I be looking at? If I understand you correctly, different societies could have different systems of ethics. I recall from my research done to deal with holocaust deniers that there were Germans who believed that it was morally wrong to save Jews from the death camps. Were they behaving morally since they were conforming to their society's understanding of what is right and wrong?
We've had this conversation so many times. Look around you. There are common themes in societies around the world and across history. We don't need a book to tell us not to kill, steal, or perjure, because our evolutionary wiring directs us toward those values.
Ethics evolve, but evolution is not arbitrary. Evolution selects what works better.
You also know full well that there are gray areas and nuances in ethics, on which reasonable people of common mind can disagree. Religion certainly has not solved that, nor can it. There are too many contradictions in scripture.
We keep on having this conversation because I am not satisfied with your answer. For example, you agree that any issue involving metaphysics such as abortion is not amenable to your approach. Furthermore, I question your reliance upon evolution as a basis for morality. In my opinion, it's inadequate for that purpose because evolution deals with what is instead of what should be. If a species can adapt to its environment then it survives. Otherwise, it does not. Evolution does not care either way. Behaviors like killing, stealing and perjury may actually provide an advantage to a person or society vis a vis others leading to their survival compared to more "moral" persons and societies. If the Nazis had prevailed, then would killing Jews be considered moral?
I’m not understanding the need to shoehorn ethics into some kind of “system”. What even is that?
Don't you need some set of principles that can be applied to new situations to determine how to behave morally?
My “system” (??) of ethics is perfectly clear on abortion because it’s murder, and it’s perfectly clear to most sane people that murder is wrong.
Next -
However, it's not clear to others that it's murder.
Yes. There are twisted, psychopathic people out there.