Morality: Well Done, Wrongly DoneThis, more or less, is what I tend to believe about morality:
Take, for example, that which we are now doing, drinking, singing and talking—these actions are not in themselves either good or evil, but they turn out in this or that way according to the mode of performing them; and when well done they are good, and when wrongly done they are evil; and in like manner not every love, but only that which has a noble purpose, is noble and worthy of praise.
-From Plato’s Symposium
What sayest thou?
Objective Morality: Clarifying The QuestionsToday I’d like to examine three different questions that come up in discussions over so-called “objective” morality, and I’d like to argue that two of them are essentially worthless in terms of answering what most people seem to perceive as the core question.
Surviving Philosophy: Objective & SubjectiveHave you ever been in one of those conversations where somebody defines the word God so loosely that it becomes near-meaningless? If so, how did that make you feel?
Here’s the thing about philosophy: it’s great for sharpening one’s wit. It’s excellent for exploring the history of human questioning. It’s useful in that it can lend itself to both personal enrichment as well as social edification. However, as a means of uncovering truth, philosophy has disadvantages. Severe disadvantages.
Deep South Tragedy: An Analogy For Humanist EthicsSo, recent posts by other bloggers have got me thinking about morality, atheism, intelligence, and God. Generally, people tend to overlook the importance of factoring intelligence into assessments of morality. I think a simple analogy will drive the point home here.
Imagine a single father living with five children. Normally, the children can know the right thing to do at any given time by asking their father, who has more experience and intelligence in life than they do, hence the authority and qualifications for establishing the rules they ought to live by.