How to Choose Right From Wrong

[MrLeN]

There is another thread running on this forum, regarding ethics, which caused me to go searching for some original views on ethics that are not rooted in self serving, man made perceptions or theories. I feel that most people consider ethics to be something that is relative and something that can be tweaked per individual to suit themselves. This difference between my understanding of ethics and the views that others presented caused a rather useless and inconclusive debate.

Although this topic is similar in nature, I'd like to create a new post, because I am now branching off to cover the consequences of the origination of ones ethics. I'd like to investigate whether self invented, self serving, relative and ambiguous ethics can be compared with a singular the set of (supreme) ethics handed to us by God.

I have decided to create this thread after finding this article online:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/ethics.html

If you do not read this article, you will have no idea what I am talking about, so you probably should find another thread to involve yourself with. I understand that the article is rather long, and you probably don't want to read it. If so, that's fine. I wont mind if you don't post. However, this thread has been created for those that are generally interested in the topic and have something intelligent to say.

The article above is written in a way that I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with. What I like about it most is that it was written by a scholar, which also surprises me. Now, I already know that a good percentage of people in the world (and this forum) would not agree with the article. Maybe even using the term: "a good percentage" is an understatement. Because I know that hardly anyone cares about God or the simple things that he has asked of us. I understand that, but I am not trying to create a debate on religion. The debate is relating to ethics and the origins of them and the strength of ethics, depending on their origination. The source.

Nevertheless, I'd like to read the views of others on this topic. For the record, my ethics are rooted in the word of God, as written in the Holy Bible. If I find a concept to be unbiblical, I will reject it. This allows me to stick to a very well rounded, logical and intelligent thought process and understanding of things that doesn't cause conflict in my head.

I also believe that modern academia has no real or solid foundation, and is not much more than a conglomeration of confusion, which is one reason why I'd rather develop my character from biblical principles, as opposed to man made principles. When I listen to people, I have to stop to analyze everything they say, because I have to manually work out what is right and what's wrong. But when I read the Bible, I just accept it as truth, because in 15 years I have not found a single lie or anything that remotely resembles a lie. But all I'd have to do is watch the discovery channel for 20 minutes and I'll be up off my chair, flapping my arms saying: "WHAT A LOAD OF BULLDUST!", "They can't know that".

Although there are truths in man derived ethics, they are not solid enough for me to put stock in. I see constant problems with man and his ways, but I can honestly say that I have read nothing in the Bible that is not supreme in advice, logic and nature.

I'd also like to state that it does require effort to live life according to a God given set of supreme guidelines (ie: biblical ethics), and I understand that many people would rather just do what they feel like doing, thus creating their own personalized, ambiguous self serving set of ethics. But I still can't agree that it's a smart way to live.

Also, for the record. I am not religious. I despise man made religion. There's nothing good about it at all. It causes nothing but trouble and 99% of the "religions" of this word are not rooted in God's word, and are therefore not representative of God's will, even though they ALL claim the contrary. So no one can accuse God's word as being troublesome, simply because man has taken the book and twisted it into his own little fantasies and plots. Which, by the way, is a perfect example of a departure from Godly ethics.

So, to be clear. My question is:

What is your opinion on the article that I have referenced?

MrLeN

[Faglork]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

faglork

[mike]

hehe faglork.

k, how bout:

supercilious

[MuNKyonline]

k, how bout:

supercilious

That's a bit cheeky Mike lol.

The opening part of the article 'How to Choose Right From Wrong' describes my views pretty accurately if you were to place me as being one of the students. I am an atheist who does not take life seriously and too believe that there isn't much point.

I believe people can choose what is right or wrong for themselves. The God and Bible I believe were just created to stop us from going crazy and to cast fear in those who wanted to wrong others thus creating a more stable society. The fact that this is the main reason of many wars and current world conflicts due to other societies beliefs not being the same as others makes the whole idea of ethics seem a joke to me.

There, that should get things going a bit =)

[mike]

I'm nothing if not cheeky.

I'm also evil, amoral and greedy apparently.

On a more serious note, I do have some reservations about politics/religion threads -even though this is the breakroom. Those subjects and internet forums have a nasty habit of not going too well together.

Nonetheless, I'm willing to give it a run and see. I would caution everyone however to keep things cordial. If it gets nasty in here I will pull the plug.

[mike]

Case in point.

Let's avoid a lot of personal 'evaluations' here. Be as critical as you like of subject matter. However, do refrain from a lot of the 'you' type of language.

[MrLeN]

I agree mike. I understand that "religion" almost always causes a raucous, and I can understand why. It truly is the cause of much of the worlds grief in the past. But that's not God's doing (or intention). The blame is on man. Therefore, I would sincerely like to try to steer clear of an utter religious debate. I am more inclined to discuss ethics, as it pertains to God's law. Not "religion" as such. There can be no true and full ethical debate if God's law is discarded. Also, let me say that I have no personal objective to promote religion, because I really don't like religion. I don't like the way it is conducted, and I don't like how men use it to achieve their sinister, worldly goals and objectives.

However, I honestly feel that the laws in which God has handed to us, through the Holy Bible, are far more advanced than absolutely anything academia can come up with. In my humble opinion, academia serves only to confuse situations when it comes to moral issues.

Let me also say that, there are branches of science which are, of course, extremely beneficial to humanity. There are a myriad of inventions, technologies and discoveries which serve the world very well, and without the diligent work of intelligent man, this world would certainly be a much more drab, cruel, unfair and unsophisticated place.

Having said all that, I really don't think that man possesses the intelectual tools to create a valid system of ethics, which is more functional and useful to the world than the principles that are outlined within the bible. I am no religious freak. I was not raised religiously. I have not been preached to. I am not regurgitating religious garble. I'm not even baptized. I am a member of no church, but I DO read the bible. And please allow me to say, and I really don't mean to blow my horn or gloat, but I am a reasonably intelligent and logical person and I do sincerely consider such things thoroughly.

What I have learned in the bible, in my mind, is nothing short of supreme. I also find it hard to believe that any one man could write such a logical and intelligent book. But the bible was written by many men, from different times and even in different languages. They all say precisely the same thing but with different wording. I have no doubt as to the authenticity of the bible, and fully believe, not through ignorance, but through understanding that bible provides every answer that man could ever need or use.

I feel that academia should stick to the nuts and bolts of the natural world, and should leave ethical, spiritual and intangible topics to the bible. Science cannot discredit the bible. It has not, and I can assure you that it never will. As a matter of fact, there are things written in the bible that man didn't actually find out or prove for many, many centuries later.

Hmm, but I guess I am dwelling on trying to prove the authenticity of the bible. I don't mean to. I just don't want anyone saying: "You're just ignorant and you just accept faith and not logic and faith and logic aren't the same and they're incompatible, blah blah blah". Hey, I have heard all that before, and please believe me, I am not ignorant.

So, in the spirit of good conversation, lets discuss the topic. Mike, if anyone does say something really stupid, I'd appreciate it if you could just edit the topic and not close a whole thread, just because one person has a chemical imbalance of the brain. Because someone WILL go overboard, I have no doubt.

Also, as I said. I understand that any topic that mentions God or the bible easily gets out of hand. But if we're really so advanced and "enlightened by learned men and academia", then why can't we handle the topic? Actually, the most influential topic to humanity.

I can offer my reason why. And I fully understand if people don't agree, and I expect people not to agree. But it is because people don't want to be told how to live. People don't like rules and they don't like being convicted of their actions. People just want to go about their life and live how they feel comfortable. If anyone tries to interrupt that, they'll get their back up. They'll get all upset and angry. But really, such conduct is not necessary. If people are so happy with who they are, and if they are content with the foundations of their beliefs and ethics, then they should be able to reply to a topic which involves God in a sophisticated and intelligent manner.

Or, dare I say, is it only those who follow "God's" principles that are able to keep cool? In such a case, who has a stronger foundation? An interesting question.

MrLeN

[jmiller]

My initial intention was to ignore this thread, even though I like this topic more than the original...I'm busy, and I didn't want to come in here and try to beat you up more-an ethical canundrum related to not picking a fight in another man's house, but then again, you invited it. I'm going to stick to most of that original intention and just offer a definition for you to consider.

Cognitive Dissonance: Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon first identified by Leon Festinger. It occurs when there is a discrepancy between what a person believes, knows and values, and persuasive information that calls these into question. The discrepancy causes psychological discomfort, and the mind adjusts to reduce the discrepancy. In ethics, cognitive dissonance is important in its ability to alter values, such as when an admired celebrity embraces behavior that his or her admirers deplore. Their dissonance will often result in changing their attitudes toward the behavior. Dissonance also leads to rationalizations of unethical conduct, as when the appeal and potential benefits of a large amount of money makes unethical actions to acquire it seem less objectionable than if they were applied to smaller amounts.

Don't box in that definition too much. It goes both ways--too justify unethical behaviors and to solidify original beliefs (the brain has a hard time with contradiction and usually protects the orignal belief in the face of evidence against at all costs because the alternative is too painful--even if the orignial belief is untrue. And pyschological discomfort is a good thing, really, it forces growth.

PS. I learned that pyschological concept through my useless and confusing education.

[MrLeN]

jmiller, please don't take offense to my reply, as I sincerely don't mean to offend you. And I am not just attempting to take a cheap stab at you. But your response outlines (in my mind) the exact "complications" that that academia causes, that I was referring to.

The bible presents things more simply, and in a way that everyone can understand. Even really silly people. Within the bible, you have a razor sharp, unwavering set of guidelines; laws. They have been condensed into 10 simple commandments, which if every person on this earth followed (unwaveringly), would result in the absolute eradication of morally derived injury and damage to society, humanity and all people contained within.

MrLeN

[jmiller]

loosely related, just posted fyi

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...=280669#280669