sapphi_snake said:
GameOver22 said:
I'm not seeing the circularity. He said he follows Christ's teachings because he agrees with the moral values they instill. That is not circular, and all ethical systems ultimately come back to this point. In essence, the question is, "what is good behavior?" Different ethical systems answer this question differently, and this gives rise to different types of behavior being justified. Most ethical criticism derives from the fact that the behavior justified by an ethical system might not be consonant with a person's feelings. If people raise these points, there is an impasse that prevents further discussion becuase there is an inherent difficulty in arguing over whose feelings are better.
For example, take utilitarianism. I don't feel that the sacrifice of innocents can be justified. Given that utilitarianism allows for the sacrifice of innocents, I reject utilitarian ethics. A utilitarian can come along and say that innocents can be sacrificed as long as the world benefits from the action. The problem is that I have already rejected that proposition because it gives rise to behavior I find to be unethical.
The main point I am making is that all ethical systems eventually come back to foundational beliefs, and if someone rejects these beliefs, there is no further reason for argumentation because they will be talking in circles. Asking someone to prove why someone should treat others as they would like to be treated also falls into the same category. The best someone could do is give examples of how this principle results in good behavior. If someone then denies this is good behavior (or asks why this behavior is good, like you are doing), there is no good objective answer because the truth of the statement is taken as foundational. This is a problem that confronts all ethical systems (not just the teachings of Christ), so you could play the questioning game with any system of ethical belief and eventually force the follower of that belief into a corner.
|
Are you saying that there's vasically no such thing as objective morality, because the very premises are based on a subjective belief? But aren't these beliefes themselves instilled in people?
|
No, there could be objective morals, but it is unlikely we will ever have complete agreement on what these foundational truths actually are.
"But aren't these beliefes themselves instilled in people?" I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Could you elaborate?
