"You cannot be moral without being religious"

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: "You cannot be moral without being religious"

Postby alan » Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:07 am

Hi Tobes.
I consider Singer's argument to be the final word because I find no flaws in his logic. If you do, please tell.
I've made a few attempts to turn the discussion towards an understanding of morality and ethics and my ideas on this should be clear if you have been reading through. They are similar to the quote you dug up.
Keep the main idea in the forefront. I'll make a statement. Let's see what you think.
"Is it possible to act ethically without being religious"?
This is a direct response to the OP. My answer is yes.
alan
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: "You cannot be moral without being religious"

Postby tobes » Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:44 am

alan wrote:Hi Tobes.
I consider Singer's argument to be the final word because I find no flaws in his logic. If you do, please tell.
I've made a few attempts to turn the discussion towards an understanding of morality and ethics and my ideas on this should be clear if you have been reading through. They are similar to the quote you dug up.
Keep the main idea in the forefront. I'll make a statement. Let's see what you think.
"Is it possible to act ethically without being religious"?
This is a direct response to the OP. My answer is yes.


Hi Alan,

My answer is yes as well, but I think we ought to qualify why, rather than just stating it.

I suppose I should take it that you are deploying Singer as your qualification?

I haven't heard the specific lecture posted on this thread, but I have read him before, and heard him speak in public lectures. I find his utilitarian orientation very problematic: not so much that there are flaws in his logic, but more that his ethics is reduced so much to a logical enterprise.

That is, there is a fundamental premise of rationality on the level of the subject (to be ethical is to act rationally) and a fundamental premise of consequentialism on the level of ethical value (the ethical value of a given act is defined solely in terms of its consequences).

Both of these premises can be important in an ethical theory, but they exclude other accounts of subjectivity (i.e. to be an intuitive and empathetic ethical subject rather than a coldly rational one) and do not grant any ethical value to the intentions of an ethical act.

As a good Buddhist, I think cetana (intention) plays a critical role, much more critical than consequence.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:34 am

Re: "You cannot be moral without being religious"

Postby alan » Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:03 am

That was a joke, right?
You are just trying to say stuff that makes no sense just to see if I'd bite?
I don't respond to nonsense.
alan
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: "You cannot be moral without being religious"

Postby tobes » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:50 am

alan wrote:That was a joke, right?
You are just trying to say stuff that makes no sense just to see if I'd bite?
I don't respond to nonsense.


No, it wasn't a joke.

It could well be badly expressed.

And you could well be a touch harsh to call it nonsense.

But it is a very similar argument that Buddhist scholars Damien Keown and Peter Harvey make in their respective works on Buddhist ethics.

What exactly do you find problematic about it?

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:34 am

Previous

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests