Originally posted by DeepThought[/b]The thing I wonder about when people run down this path of how this became thought of
I realise that this is a discussion between you and Kazet I'm butting into, but I think the following might add something. Bernard Williams was one of the, in not the, preeminent moral philosophers of the twentieth century, in his book he distinguishes between ethics and morality, and this is a distinction that may be relevant here:Here and earli ...[text shortened]... and the Limits of Philosophy[/i] Bernard Williams, [b]Routledge Classics 2011 ed.p7
as good or bad in any form, we first have to get to the place of any type of "notions" not
just the ethical ones are part of life's reality.
From a point of mere cause and effect due to chemical reactions is all life is than moving
to contemplation is a huge step for any life form at any level of awarness. When going
from simple chemical reactions how would this occur sure seems like a lot of required
levels of understanding would have to be reached first? There would never be a judgment
call made early on when just chemical reactions started life from non-life.
If new information is brought into play there would be no this is better than that so where
did any "notion" come from let alone the good and bad.
Originally posted by KellyJayThe master of vagueness takes it to a new level.
From a point of mere cause and effect due to chemical reactions is all life is than moving
to contemplation is a huge step for any life form at any level of awarness. When going
from simple chemical reactions how would this occur sure seems like a lot of required
levels of understanding would have to be reached first? There would never be a judgment
call made early on when just chemical reactions started life from non-life.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou think thoughts are without some level understanding [...]
You think thoughts are without some level understanding, and judgment calls can be made without some level of understanding?
Please rephrase this part of your question in English.
[...] and judgment calls can be made without some level of understanding?
Some level of understanding of what?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra🙂 I guess some level of understanding is required, you are living proof.
[b]You think thoughts are without some level understanding [...]
Please rephrase this part of your question in English.
[...] and judgment calls can be made without some level of understanding?
Some level of understanding of what?[/b]
5 edits
Originally posted by finnegan
There is no requirement for a moral code to be based on or produced by religion. That is only one of the avenues available and only one of the forms of morality encountered in studies of human societies.
Is an ethical sense or moral sense as a component of man's created being "a moral code based on or produced by religion?"
The law of gravity, for instance, works everywhere, not just in the physics department of a university. If an ethical sense is bestowed upon our created being, setting us as humans apart from other animals, is that "a moral code based on or produced by religion?"
It would be an internal moral sense whether or not individuals subscribed to a particular religion, if so. Right?
Originally posted by sonshipClearly not. You may believe that the law of gravity and morals come from God and thus your understanding of them may be part of your religion, but neither you, nor anyone else, would correctly say that the law of gravity was based on or produced by your religion.
The law of gravity, for instance, works everywhere, not just in the physics department of a university. If an ethical sense is bestowed upon our created being, setting us as humans apart from other animals, is that "a moral code based on or produced by religion?"