|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why No Such Thing As Right & Wrong ?
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
The most influential Ancient Philosophers like Zarathustra, Buddha, Plato, believed abstract ideas were real in some way: There actually were such things a Right & Wrong. The early Christians seemed happy with this World-View. People like Aristotle developed a further theory of Concept-Formation which seems to work in modern terms. How come there are Christians who believe there's no such thing as Right & Wrong?
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Really?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think you are a bit muddled up about the Buddha. Many Buddhists talk about being skillful, rather than being right or wrong. Skillful behaviour might include treating people well, but not out of some abstract principle, but out of a living contact with that person, where love is born, (or had never died). In some ways, abstraction is that which kills love.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
The early Christians seemed happy with this World-View.
And when the world-view changed the Christians seemed happy with that world view. When the world-view changed again, to Modernism, Christians adapted to that world-view too; Evangelicalism is an example of this. Now a lot of people are post-modern, believing there is no absolute right and wrong, people are adapting the way they preach the gospel to accommodate these people too.
Adaptability to the culture of the time, without compromising the message, is one of the strengths of Christianity.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
Zarathustra, Buddha, Plato, all believed you had a special faculty for apprehending abstract ideas. Zarathustra thought you had three souls, one of which specialized in ideas. Buddha thought you literally had a Sixth Sense (it's in one of his Middle-Length Discourses) and Plato thought you had the Eye Of The Soul.
The Greeks had a different view of Memory. They didn't think you stored data inside your head, so they regarded Memory as a perception of the past. Also it included Pattern Recognition. So Aristotle was able to say in effect, that we got abstractions by correlating past events and activities, as opposed to recognizing material objects from past observation.
This never became an independent theory, because it was used to reinforce the metaphysical view of abstractions as existing like spiritual beings. But it works for me.
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think you are a bit muddled up about the Buddha. Many Buddhists talk about being skillful, rather than being right or wrong. Skillful behaviour might include treating people well, but not out of some abstract principle, but out of a living contact with that person, where love is born, (or had never died). In some ways, abstraction is that which kills love.
Keep in mind Buddhism varies by practitioner and language usage, much as Christianity does.
That said, Buddhism does have the concept of right and wrong, but it is not codified in quite the same way.
Not sure what Frank Mitchell is in about regarding Christianity, though.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Not sure about his take on Greek philosophy either. While Plato had absolutes, or 'forms' the Sophists seem to have been relativists when asking 'What's right in Athens.' (or Sparta, or Corinth et al) It would seem, for him, that 'wring' was what a particular society said was wrong and that it might be right somewhere else.
Where Christians are concerned, those who follow Joseph Fletcher's (in my view, discredited) situation ethics have only one absolute i.e. 'love'. The most loving thing to do, for them, varies according to the situation.
[ 05. January 2014, 15:27: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Probably safe to say that Christian morality eschews legalism in favour of concepts of justice, mercy and faith. That's according to its Founder, anyway. Does that make it relativist, or too fluid? I don't think so. Well principled, intentionally full of goodwill and desirous of living peaceably with others as far as we can. That is in accordance with its best known early missionary voice.
Practice is, of course, something else. Church history is full of examples of principled and unprincipled people, as well as people of goodwill and not-so-good. But then that's what follows from engagement with others.
On that issue, I like this Pope Francis quote
quote:
A little bit of mercy makes the world less cold and more just
That says a lot about being there for others. It's not just the gospel according to the Four Tops.
[ 05. January 2014, 16:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Now a lot of people are post-modern, believing there is no absolute right and wrong, people are adapting the way they preach the gospel to accommodate these people too.
Adaptability to the culture of the time, without compromising the message, is one of the strengths of Christianity.
I'm afraid I can't see how a Christian could take such a post-modern view. I've heard, of course, of theologians like Don Cupitt who call themselves post modern but since he doesn't actually believe in God I wouldn't call him a Christian.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
What about Brian McLaren then? I don't know if he would call himself post-modern, but he presents the gospel to appeal to people who are.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
What about Brian McLaren then? I don't know if he would call himself post-modern, but he presents the gospel to appeal to people who are.
I haven't read his work but looking at his Wikipedia page I'm not clear if he believes in God either.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
What about Brian McLaren then? I don't know if he would call himself post-modern, but he presents the gospel to appeal to people who are.
I haven't read his work but looking at his Wikipedia page I'm not clear if he believes in God either.
That's daft, Tommy1; of course McLaren believes in God! Just because he might hold to some very different doctrines from you, that doesn't mean his faith in Christ is any less deep or sincere than yours.
Declaration - I'm a McLaren fanboy...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
Okay: Do people here believe that Spiritual Beings exist in the same way as Abstract Ideas? This was the Platonist/Pythagorean view.
For instance: When I think of a number, say 5, it seems real to me. It has definite properties, like being a Prime Number. Though you can actually factorize it as (2+i)*(2-i) where "i" is the square-root of -1. Maybe it's just me, but "i" seems real to me also.
Or think of a Right-Angled Triangle. DIY enthusiasts are confident it will obey Pythagoras' Theorem when they lay out a concrete garage-base by getting a long piece of string and knotting it, forming a 3-4-5 triangle to make the corners square. That seems kind of real too.
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
The most influential Ancient Philosophers like Zarathustra, Buddha, Plato, believed abstract ideas were real in some way: There actually were such things a Right & Wrong. The early Christians seemed happy with this World-View. People like Aristotle developed a further theory of Concept-Formation which seems to work in modern terms. How come there are Christians who believe there's no such thing as Right & Wrong?
There's at least one non sequitur here, and there may be some more.
Whether the ancients - or anyone else - believed that abstract ideas have a real existence or not and whether one agrees with them or not, for a Christian has no bearing on whether things are objectively Right or Wrong. Nor does disbelief in their objectivity oblige one to believe ethics are relative.
ISTM among the very many things that follow from being a Christian are the following understandings:-
1. God is objectively real. So, his nature is not relative to where we are looking towards him from.
2. God has a personality. Christian orthodoxy says this personality is revealed in the records of him in scripture but above all in Jesus Christ, "the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15).
3. What is in accordance with God's nature, and how he would like to see us live is right.
4. What is not in accordance with God's nature, and is not how he would like to see us live is wrong.
5. Jesus Christ is our touchstone for this, not speculation about ethics.
6. We may perceive him and these things inadequately, 'as through a glass darkly' (1 Cor 13:12). Indeed, we may get him or them wrong. There are many areas where people argue with great self-assurance for directly opposite views. Nevertheless, whether we get him right or not, since God is objectively real, these are objective standards.
7. As far as I know, there is no evidence that any abstract ideas have an objective existence in any spiritual or numinous realm, rather than being useful words to describe ideas that are valuable to help us live. It doesn't seem very likely, but it doesn't matter very much.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
Hang on: If you're a Lawyer, aren't you supposed to follow an ethical code, which basically supports common-sense ideas of Right & Wrong? Or at least the abstract ideas contained in the Legal System? I've only been in court once, as a Juror,and I don't believe the Barristers on either side had a direct line to God.
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
What about Brian McLaren then? I don't know if he would call himself post-modern, but he presents the gospel to appeal to people who are.
I haven't read his work but looking at his Wikipedia page I'm not clear if he believes in God either.
I don't know the work or teachings of either of the two people mentioned, but I have to ask Tommy, whether you believe that anyone who doesn't belong to your denomination actually believes in God?
Do only people who meet your standards of faith, and are part of your denomination actually class as Christians? What about Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Methodists etc? Are they Christians, and do they believe in God?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
Hang on: If you're a Lawyer, aren't you supposed to follow an ethical code, which basically supports common-sense ideas of Right & Wrong? Or at least the abstract ideas contained in the Legal System? I've only been in court once, as a Juror,and I don't believe the Barristers on either side had a direct line to God.
True. Perhaps I am being sense, though, but I can't see what bearing this has on what I've just said or how, to my lights, it answers the previous post.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
What about Brian McLaren then? I don't know if he would call himself post-modern, but he presents the gospel to appeal to people who are.
I haven't read his work but looking at his Wikipedia page I'm not clear if he believes in God either.
Why don't you look at what he writes, rather than some second hand summary? It seems wrong to question the faith of another Christian, particularly when that second hand summary describes him as a prominent Christian pastor. That looks like selective use of hearsay. You doubt the description of him as a Christian pastor on the basis of a short summary of his beliefs and activities. You might also consider doubting the accuracy or comprehensiveness of the summmary as well. You appear to have rushed to judgment.
On a more general point, I gave up years ago on the whole notion that those of us who are evangelical have any superior knowledge about who is or is not a "nominal Christian". I think it is a form of arrogance to judge other people on the basis of our preferred doctrinal and hot-button issue tick lists.
I choose the word arrogance carefully, since the Lord knows who are His much better than I would ever claim to do. In my opinion, there is a profound right and wrong issue contained in this particular example, and I do not relativise about it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
The Bible seems to contain different views of God's preference. Jesus said "Love thy neighbour as thyself", and people think that's a good idea. They said so in a survey not so long ago. But in the Old Testament, God doesn't mind the Israelites slaughtering their neighbours in huge numbers. And so on: I'm sure you've heard this argument before. And the Bible is a selection of books which were considered the most authentic by the Catholic Church around the 4th Century. Isn't there an need for other criteria when interpreting these Scriptures?
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
The Bible seems to contain different views of God's preference. Jesus said "Love thy neighbour as thyself", and people think that's a good idea. They said so in a survey not so long ago. But in the Old Testament, God doesn't mind the Israelites slaughtering their neighbours in huge numbers. And so on: I'm sure you've heard this argument before.
Of course, when Jesus said in summarizing the Law "love your neighbour as yourself" he was simply quoting Leviticus. So, any inconsistency is within the OT. The "OT nasty/NT nice" point of view does not reflect the complexity of the reality.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
What about Brian McLaren then? I don't know if he would call himself post-modern, but he presents the gospel to appeal to people who are.
I haven't read his work but looking at his Wikipedia page I'm not clear if he believes in God either.
I don't know the work or teachings of either of the two people mentioned, but I have to ask Tommy, whether you believe that anyone who doesn't belong to your denomination actually believes in God?
Do only people who meet your standards of faith, and are part of your denomination actually class as Christians?
Not at all. I do however think that a Christian must be someone who believes that God is objectively real.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
The Bible seems to contain different views of God's preference. Jesus said "Love thy neighbour as thyself", and people think that's a good idea. They said so in a survey not so long ago. But in the Old Testament, God doesn't mind the Israelites slaughtering their neighbours in huge numbers. And so on: I'm sure you've heard this argument before.
Of course, when Jesus said in summarizing the Law "love your neighbour as yourself" he was simply quoting Leviticus. So, any inconsistency is within the OT. The "OT nasty/NT nice" point of view does not reflect the complexity of the reality.
It's not a bad first approximation though is it? If I may misquote Brian Blessed's Richard IV from Blackadder, the OT version can be a bit sort of "love your neighbour as yourself, unless he's an Amelakite, in which case slaughter the bastard!"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
What about Brian McLaren then? I don't know if he would call himself post-modern, but he presents the gospel to appeal to people who are.
I haven't read his work but looking at his Wikipedia page I'm not clear if he believes in God either.
Why don't you look at what he writes, rather than some second hand summary? It seems wrong to question the faith of another Christian, particularly when that second hand summary describes him as a prominent Christian pastor. That looks like selective use of hearsay.
Balaam asked me what I thought of Brian McLaren. Having never read his work I was unable to answer. I looked on Wikipedia and was not clear as to whether he thinks God is objectively real so that's how I answered. When the essay says things like " McLaren believes this theology [...] faith to exist without objective, propositional truth to believe." it makes me doubt that he does. If someone could answer this point or suggest an essay by McLaren that answers this crucial question I would be grateful.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Propositional truth has value, but it does not define the reality of God. We grasp for the ineffable, even with the revelation we have to help us.
Anyway here is the context of Brian McLaren's quote from the Wiki article.
In terms of Christian orthodoxy, I think McLaren is right in his replies. Though I am sure he has more to say on the nature of objectivity and knowing. And the relationship between the Word and the Spirit. I read him to be pointing to an important truth. Belief that we are saved by "objective knowledge" whatever those words may mean, rather than by grace through faith, is a type of Gnosticism.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
Why can't people be Gnostics if they want? I've heard there are still Manichaeans in China, and Mandaeans in various places, including Birmingham.
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Some people are. I visited a Gnostic church in L.A. a few weeks ago. They just aren't mainline Christians and don't consider themselves to be. Their choice.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
Why can't people be Gnostics if they want? I've heard there are still Manichaeans in China, and Mandaeans in various places, including Birmingham.
Of course they can. But that doesn't make them Christians.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Lyda*Rose has it right. Gnostic beliefs aren't mainstream Christianity; Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant streams. But folks are free to believe what they want to believe.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Lyda*Rose has it right. Gnostic beliefs aren't mainstream Christianity; Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant streams. But folks are free to believe what they want to believe.
It just might not do them any good. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hugorune
Apprentice
# 17793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm not sure there are many Christians who are total relativists. Most just seem to agree that ethics are messy, so trying to make everything black or white is a path to madness.
I think the point is that while there is an absolute law, the fullness of the law transcends our language, experience, and inability to understand. Humans tend to think about things linearly and hierarchically - which law comes after this one, which is higher than that, etc. We can't comprehend things as God does - unbounded by the limits of time and language. As such, we often get confused about the details, or even in emphasising one detail over another, we stray away from love and into the realms of self-righteousness and pride. But we need not tie ourselves up into such legalistic knots.
Thankfully the essential matters are far simpler for us, as much as the actual way we receive Christ is mysterious, we may yet be assured that we have done so - and despite our human failings, even as we feel God's love for us, and truly desire and strive to love God and others in reflection and response, in the manner that we have been shown through revelation, then in those actions righteousness, the following of God's law, shall be our reward.
--------------------
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
Posts: 47 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Belief that we are saved by "objective knowledge" whatever those words may mean, rather than by grace through faith, is a type of Gnosticism.
Of course it is. That is a different point from asking is McLaren thinks God is real. Seeing the context of his quote didn't clarify that either.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Belief that we are saved by "objective knowledge" whatever those words may mean, rather than by grace through faith, is a type of Gnosticism.
Of course it is. That is a different point from asking is McLaren thinks God is real. Seeing the context of his quote didn't clarify that either.
Dunno, this quote seems pretty clear.
quote:
"I believe people are saved not by objective truth, but by Jesus. Their faith isn’t in their knowledge, but in God." – Brian McLaren
Not certain how one can believe Jesus saves without believing in Jesus.
Could, perhaps, your interpretation involve him differing from your qualifications for what constitutes a Christian than his shifting from the basic definition?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Tommy1
Let me try something else then. Here is Brian McLaren replying to some criticisms of his book "A New Kind of Christianity",
From the Brian McLaren blog.
Although quite long, it is worth reading to help you get the measure of the man. But on the reality of God, and in particular, the reality of God in Jesus, he is quite explicit.
quote:
First, who do I say Jesus is? In answering that question, I would go exactly to the passages you did: Peter's confession of Jesus at Caesarea Philippi (I wrote about this at some length in EMC), Paul's beautiful hymns in Colossians and Philippians, and John 14:9. So yes, I enthusiastically affirm the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Yes, I'm a wholehearted Trinitarian.
And later, this
quote:
I love the quote from Wright that you included, by the way. And I also fully agree with Wright when he says that to speak of the divinity of Christ is not simply to take a pre-existing definition of God and apply it to Jesus, but rather it means that in Jesus, we are given a new and deeper and more wonderful definition of God than has ever been had before. Of course, the insight into God as Trinity itself flows from the breakthrough revelation of God in Christ.
I hope those statements are sufficiently explicit to put your doubts to rest. Brian McLaren has some controversial views, so he has many critics as well as many supporters, but his beliefs in the reality of God and God-in-Christ are clearly mainstream.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
quote:
How come there are Christians who believe there's no such thing as Right & Wrong?
Is there such a thing? A question Ive been wondering about.
My conclusion is that there is, but Right is doing the will of God and Wrong is not doing it.
This rather begs the question, but since Christians believe Jesus was without sin and he said he "always did the will of the father", the conclusion seems to follow.
The difficult bit for anyone is knowing the will of God in any situation - just about impossible for humanity.
The commandments don't help as maybe killing someone is God's will for you in a particular situation.
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
@Frank Mitchell Is it wrong to tell a lie?
That's not always as straightforward as we might think, particularly if we are keeping a confidence. There is a helpful quotation here
quote:
He that hath a secret to keep must keep it secret that he hath a secret
There is often a good deal of skill involved in avoiding the need to give a direct answer to someone who is "fishing" because they suspect we know something. Going silent can often give the game away, thereby breaking a promise given in good faith, often to a vulnerable person.
Sometimes good ethics get in the way of one another. Quoting Sir Thomas More (not for the first time on the Ship), from "A Man for All Seasons".
quote:
A man must serve the Lord wittily, in the tangle of his mind
Things can get tangled up sometimes.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
@barnibus62 I agree. It's why I don't agree with the concepts of right and wrong as described by the OP. Too much need for context.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I don't think there are many serious ethical dilemmas which do not fall into one of two categories. Either:-
A. Two virtues are in conflict, or
B. What is right is in conflict with my self-interest.
Class A ones are quite difficult to work out but fairly rare. If we have made a serious stab at reaching a workable and balanced answer, I think the Lord will usually accept what we do, even if in the abstract some people might say we were wrong.
Class B ones are fairly easy to work out and much more frequent. I don't think he's as accommodating when we get those wrong.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
This is but one example of abstractions which may exist in some sense, or maybe not. Getting legalistic, does a Limited Company exist? I'm not a Lawyer, but my understanding is that a Company is a Legal Person, an abstract entity which is treated like a human. Not everybody agrees. If you suggest that a Company should aim to keep its Customers satisfied, some people think you're being silly. How can it have such a purpose when it's just a Collective Noun? Then there's the idea of Limited Liability. Tell them it means the Shareholders aren't necessarily liable for all the Company's debts, and again they reckon you're being silly. They believe their Company has no legal liability for any disaster which ensues, even in cases of Death & Personal Injury. That's especially feasible when you consider there's No Such Thing As Right & Wrong.
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Never thought of it exactly like that before, Enoch, but there's much sense in your two categories.
George Spigot, I think situational complexities actually require us to have a more accurate moral compass, to avoid getting lost in the tulgy wood of rationalised self-interest.
In a way, that was the point of Thomas More's dilemma in Bolt's play, also, equally poignantly, John Proctor's in Millar's brilliant witchcraft play, "The Crucible". In both cases it was a matter of life and death, and in both cases, they are seen not to have chosen the easy way out. Because in the end their senses of right and wrong in complex circumstances informed the choice which was definitely not in their immediate best interests.
[ 07. January 2014, 16:55: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I would add a category
C. Where Part contradicts Whole.*
Law and religion test this constantly.
*Though this might be seen as a subset of A.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Enoch: I don't think there are many serious ethical dilemmas which do not fall into one of two categories. Either:-
A. Two virtues are in conflict, or
B. What is right is in conflict with my self-interest.
Class A ones are quite difficult to work out but fairly rare. [...]
Class B ones are fairly easy to work out and much more frequent.
In my case, it's exactly the opposite, overwhelmingly so.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
It gets even more complicated when you factor in the long term effects of an action.
For example, evangelizing to the heathens may seem like "right", but if, in the process, they contract small pox or other diseases that kill them off after the evangelizer leaves that may change the assessment somewhat.
But whether the end results is "right" or "wrong" then depends on a lot of relative value judgements, expectations, intentions, etc.:
Is it better to be living and not having heard the gospel, or to have heard it and be dead? Some will argue for the latter, saying they have a better chance of escaping Hell. Others will disagree.
Does negligence on the part of the evangelizer mean that evangelizing is not "right"? Or is the negligence a separate "wrong" act? Does it matter whether the negligence is out of ignorance (as might have been the case in some previous centuries) or willful?
Does the intent and/or motivation of the evangelizer matter in whether the actions are "right" or "wrong"? There are many possible motivations for evangelizing, some of which may be very selfish or focused on personal gain (perhaps "saving souls" gives him a better chance of marrying the minister's daughter) and others based on various amounts of pride, hubris, etc.
I think one reason for the post-modern concept that there are no absolute "rights" or "wrongs" is that we've seen enough examples over the centuries of actions that seemed "right" at the time, but that had long term consequences that now seem "wrong" (especially in regards to other people involved).
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
Are there any Lawyers who can comment on the existence or non-existence of a Legal Person, and in what sense does it have Liability for Death & Personal Injury? My post above is a Real-Life example.
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
Are there any Lawyers who can comment on the existence or non-existence of a Legal Person, and in what sense does it have Liability for Death & Personal Injury? My post above is a Real-Life example.
This can be complicated but usually for reason that has nothing to do with whether a legal person exists or not. I'd strongly suggest you consult a lawyer and give him or her the full facts.
To summarise though from memory, in England or Wales a limited company has exactly the same liability for injuries etc caused by its employees as a human person would have. If there's going to be a problem it usually arises over whether the employee did the damage as part of their job (employer liable) or while on some jaunt of their own (employer probably not liable). Or it arises because limited liability means the company may be liable but hasn't got enough money to meet the claim.
You could always try suing the person who actually caused the damage as well. They do not have limited liability, but may not have any money either.
But I could not overstress how important it is to go and get proper legal advice and not rely on casual comments in fora or chatrooms on the internet.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
Thanks. I haven't received any Personal Injury, and I'm not trying to sue anybody. I just wanted to ask you as a Lawyer, about the Legal Person issue, because that's another Abstract Idea which gets treated as a Reality. I'm not saying a Limited Company should be treated as a Spiritual Being like God, but it surely ranks alongside Right & Wrong. Plus alot of people spend alot of time as Employees of these mysterious entities. And I've met people who don't see how a Company can be held responsible for anything, because it's basically just a figure of speech, and there's actually no such animal.
I can mention another significant fact about the real-life Company above: Their Main Customer got fed up with them, and the Auditors refused to approve the Annual Accounts. People told me I was being silly for saying there might be a problem here: To them, the regulations relating to a fantasy creature like a Limited Company couldn't mean much in the Real World. The Managing Director posted a notice assuring everybody that the Company was doing really well. Two weeks later somebody put him in the picture, and he posted another notice saying he didn't see how the Company could survive. It got rescued, with some redundancies of which I was one.
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
