Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I only really read the thread's title. :P Didn't feel like reading much else at the moment.

The fact that scientists and theologians can have a "peaceful coexistence" is because the theologians accept enough reason to not resort to violence. So this isn't pure faith existing peacefully with pure reason. It's a mixture of faith and reason coexisting peacefully with reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you chose to pretend that meant we don't have answers for your questions.

Hardly. I had specific questions, and most of the answers consisted of "read this". I don't regard that as much of an answer, for a number of reasons, some of which I enumerated. That some of you, as individuals, can't answer my questions does not mean that Objectivism does not provide answers. Two of my specific questions were at least partially addressed (thank you). The partial answers simply clarified what my reading over the years has suggested: Objectivism is simply situational ethics. It proposes a certain standard (a good one, by and large) but that standard is itself subjective (that is, it cannot be scientifically demonstrated). That's OK, folks -- don't get your undies in a bunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It proposes a certain standard (a good one, by and large)

How do you discern whether or not a moral standard is "good", except by way of another moral standard? And if you have already assumed another moral system, on what is that moral system founded?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly. I had specific questions, and most of the answers consisted of "read this". I don't regard that as much of an answer, for a number of reasons, some of which I enumerated. That some of you, as individuals, can't answer my questions does not mean that Objectivism does not provide answers. Two of my specific questions were at least partially addressed (thank you). The partial answers simply clarified what my reading over the years has suggested: Objectivism is simply situational ethics. It proposes a certain standard (a good one, by and large) but that standard is itself subjective (that is, it cannot be scientifically demonstrated). That's OK, folks -- don't get your undies in a bunch.

I think you need to stop jumping the gun and claiming things about our system of ethics and pick up that Tara Smith book...so you can, properly, learn the difference between ours and all of the others.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is what I see wrong with Objectivist ethics. It appears to be simply a fancy name for "situational ethics" or moral relativism. I did not ask, "does it further an individual's life to engage in cannibalism?", but rather, is it morally right, or morally wrong, to eat the dead or otherwise make use of corpses, perhaps even commercially? If not, why not? I did not ask, "Does it further an individual's life to engage in consensual incest", I asked if it were morally right, or morally wrong? If you maintain that the only question that matters is "does it further my life as an individual", then it is indeed subjective. This thread has been useful, I suppose, in clarifying that for me.

There does exist, at least in principle, an objective context in which each of cannibalism and incest would be ethical actions for an individual to partake in. Granted, these are very, very narrow contexts, but I only need to determine a single good context for any given action in order to refute your attempt to paint that action as wrong under any circumstances.

You want an all or nothing approach to ethics, which I commend; but, I disagree with your assessment of what needs to be clearly resolved. You apply all or nothing ethical judgment to action without context. I apply it to my reasons for choosing specific actions, i.e., I am a purist when it comes to my motivations, and I keep my means and ends in alignment, and I don't compromise, am all or nothing, on principles.

One of my principles is that to judge an action as good or bad, one must know the purpose of the action and the context in which it was taken. In that case, one can verify the purpose (was it valid?); one can relate the purpose and context to see if the action taken was valid and/or optimal; and then, one can judge the action on its merits according to purpose and implementation. Only if the purpose and execution are in harmony can an action possibly be virtuous; and then, only if the purpose is honest. The execution may fail to achieve the desired purpose through no moral fault of the actor; but note, the actor is at fault if he/she attempts something that is clearly outside the limits of the doable (an action cannot be virtuous if the ends are impossible).

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...