on the basis of morals/ethics

[Peter Kropotkin]

The basis morality/ethics has traditionally been based
on the rules and laws of a god... The basis of morals/ethics
in the west has been the Bible for over a thousand years...

Thou shall not...

But as noted by Nietzsche, "god is dead" and clearly the events
of the last 200 years seem to confirm this observation.. or how
do we explain the events of the last century...
we, who live post-holocaust, post atomic bomb, two world wars, the
cold war, Vietnam... the "My Lai massacre", 9/11, for example..
how do we claim that we obey or follow a god when there is no
valid religious explanation for these events of the last 200 years...
leaves us the question, upon what basis do we now use to
justify our morals/ethics if not god?

This was the question that drove Nietzsche...in a no god world,
upon what basis do we justify morality/ethics?
Nietzsche based his morality/ethics on Aristotle's ''Nicomachean
Ethics''...

the "Nicomachean ethics" goal/telos, was to get human beings to
to engage in "character excellence" to seek out living well and
engage in eudaimonia: which is translated as well being, happiness or
human flourishing...the point was that an "excellent human being"
would have moderate appetites.. be in control of their passions
and needs... the Greek ideals was the man who acted moderately
in their needs, actions, wants, and what we would call "lifestyle"
choices.. would have "character excellence"... the moderate human
being was the ideal goal of Aristotle and of Nietzsche.. and how does
the modern actions of human beings, of capitalism match that goal
of Aristotle's?

Is the modern obsession with money, power, fame, titles
material goods... is that in line with Aristotle's moderation?

So, clearly we do not follow the path of Aristotle or Nietzsche or of god...
(thou shall not) so what path do we follow? On what exactly do we base
our ethics/morality upon? Is it science, mysticism, Kant, history,
faith, logic, tradition? On what grounds do we base our current
morals/ethics?

You might say god or the bible, but the Holocaust, for example,
would beg to differ that we follow the word of god...
the dropping of the nuclear bomb would suggest that our
morals/ethics isn't based on science... the justification for
dropping the bomb was by killing hundreds of thousands of
Japanese people we would save the lives of hundreds of thousands
of AMERICAN lives...a justification used by America and politicians
since then...that Americans lives have more ''value'' than other
nationalities... and certain Americans have more value than other
Americans...a justification used in every single police killing
of unarmed black people and every single killing of a ''terrorist'
we kill before they kill us....
the idea that we must protect ourselves at all costs is a
moral/ethical idea...and what is it based on? God, science,
biology, common sense (which isn't common) or religion...
(to say we must defend ourselves at all costs is in direct violation of the bible,
''thou shall not kill'' is a pretty simple directive without any type of out
clause like "thou shall not kill unless it is in self-defense or to protect
yourself".. no it says, "thou shall not kill" pretty basic..
so clearly we are not interested in our moral/ethical ideas being
based on the bible...

so, given all this, on what should we base our ethical/moral beliefs on?

Kropotkin

[Belinda]

The basis morality/ethics has traditionally been based
on the rules and laws of a god... The basis of morals/ethics
in the west has been the Bible for over a thousand years...

Thou shall not...

But as noted by Nietzsche, "god is dead" and clearly the events
of the last 200 years seem to confirm this observation.. or how
do we explain the events of the last century...
we, who live post-holocaust, post atomic bomb, two world wars, the
cold war, Vietnam... the "My Lai massacre", 9/11, for example..
how do we claim that we obey or follow a god when there is no
valid religious explanation for these events of the last 200 years...
leaves us the question, upon what basis do we now use to
justify our morals/ethics if not god?

This was the question that drove Nietzsche...in a no god world,
upon what basis do we justify morality/ethics?
Nietzsche based his morality/ethics on Aristotle's ''Nicomachean
Ethics''...

the "Nicomachean ethics" goal/telos, was to get human beings to
to engage in "character excellence" to seek out living well and
engage in eudaimonia: which is translated as well being, happiness or
human flourishing...the point was that an "excellent human being"
would have moderate appetites.. be in control of their passions
and needs... the Greek ideals was the man who acted moderately
in their needs, actions, wants, and what we would call "lifestyle"
choices.. would have "character excellence"... the moderate human
being was the ideal goal of Aristotle and of Nietzsche.. and how does
the modern actions of human beings, of capitalism match that goal
of Aristotle's?

Is the modern obsession with money, power, fame, titles
material goods... is that in line with Aristotle's moderation?

So, clearly we do not follow the path of Aristotle or Nietzsche or of god...
(thou shall not) so what path do we follow? On what exactly do we base
our ethics/morality upon? Is it science, mysticism, Kant, history,
faith, logic, tradition? On what grounds do we base our current
morals/ethics?

You might say god or the bible, but the Holocaust, for example,
would beg to differ that we follow the word of god...
the dropping of the nuclear bomb would suggest that our
morals/ethics isn't based on science... the justification for
dropping the bomb was by killing hundreds of thousands of
Japanese people we would save the lives of hundreds of thousands
of AMERICAN lives...a justification used by America and politicians
since then...that Americans lives have more ''value'' than other
nationalities... and certain Americans have more value than other
Americans...a justification used in every single police killing
of unarmed black people and every single killing of a ''terrorist'
we kill before they kill us....
the idea that we must protect ourselves at all costs is a
moral/ethical idea...and what is it based on? God, science,
biology, common sense (which isn't common) or religion...
(to say we must defend ourselves at all costs is in direct violation of the bible,
''thou shall not kill'' is a pretty simple directive without any type of out
clause like "thou shall not kill unless it is in self-defense or to protect
yourself".. no it says, "thou shall not kill" pretty basic..
so clearly we are not interested in our moral/ethical ideas being
based on the bible...

so, given all this, on what should we base our ethical/moral beliefs on?

Kropotkin

Jesus was a proper believing Jew who held to the moral code of the OT Prophets. Besides the OT Prophets there were other world wide sources of the same basic morality , who appeared during the Axial Age around 800-200 BCE. (Karl Jaspers). Until a substantial new universal moral code appears we should cling to the present one as supported by the United Nations and world religions.

The Mai Lai massacre, and the Nazi Holocaust are clear cases of false idols.

The God who is dead is the old authoritarian deity who is still relinquishing his hold on the popular imagination. The God who is taking the place of honour is a reasonable God.

[popeye1945]

"Traditional religion came into being when the first conman met the first fool." Mark Twain

[Belinda]

"Traditional religion came into being when the first conman met the first fool." Mark Twain

I'd say the same of all politicised belief systems of which there are several, such as capitalism, communism. democracy, socialism, fatalism, social class and feudalism, etc.

Among other belief systems religion has this to recommend it. Together with moral philosophy religion is the medium for traditional and avant garde ethics.

[popeye1945]

"Traditional religion came into being when the first conman met the first fool." Mark Twain

I'd say the same of all politicised belief systems of which there are several, such as capitalism, communism. democracy, socialism, fatalism, social class and feudalism, etc.

Among other belief systems religion has this to recommend it. Together with moral philosophy religion is the medium for traditional and avant garde ethics.

Belinda,
The existence of the other systems you mention do not require faith to believe in their existence, and the type of religious medium you are talking about is not that which is common to the population at large. I got that directly from the talking snake!! I do not doubt that religion served a purpose historically but as it is presently formulated it contributes to a dumbing down of a great portion of the population.

[Belinda]

"Traditional religion came into being when the first conman met the first fool." Mark Twain

I'd say the same of all politicised belief systems of which there are several, such as capitalism, communism. democracy, socialism, fatalism, social class and feudalism, etc.

Among other belief systems religion has this to recommend it. Together with moral philosophy religion is the medium for traditional and avant garde ethics.

Belinda,
The existence of the other systems you mention do not require faith to believe in their existence, and the type of religious medium you are talking about is not that which is common to the population at large. I got that directly from the talking snake!! I do not doubt that religion served a purpose historically but as it is presently formulated it contributes to a dumbing down of a great portion of the population.

If faith is construed as pinning your choices to the unprovable, then the other systems depend on faith. Take socialism versus capitalism, for instance. I'm socialist not because I bloody know it's better than capitalism but because I have faith in equality and fair distribution That is my attitude, my faith. There is no divine arbiter who says there actually are, or aren't , superior men who deserve the best of the crop.

The administering of religion is normally dumb because most people are silly, but silly people too deserve the solace or truths of religion, as long as these are not outright lies. The parables of Jesus may be respected because these are true for particular cases and also for universal cases. The books of The Bible should be taught as literature on a par with other important books. I try not to be silly and to think for myself and not think what any old priest tells me.

I hope that religion is taught as part of anthropology, history, and sociology. I also hope religion is never taught as the definition of goodness, truth, and beauty. We need to pay close attention to curriculums.

[popeye1945]

I'd say the same of all politicised belief systems of which there are several, such as capitalism, communism. democracy, socialism, fatalism, social class and feudalism, etc.

Among other belief systems religion has this to recommend it. Together with moral philosophy religion is the medium for traditional and avant garde ethics.

Belinda,
The existence of the other systems you mention do not require faith to believe in their existence, and the type of religious medium you are talking about is not that which is common to the population at large. I got that directly from the talking snake!! I do not doubt that religion served a purpose historically but as it is presently formulated it contributes to a dumbing down of a great portion of the population.

If faith is construed as pinning your choices to the unprovable, then the other systems depend on faith. Take socialism versus capitalism, for instance. I'm socialist not because I bloody know it's better than capitalism but because I have faith in equality and fair distribution That is my attitude, my faith. There is no divine arbiter who says there actually are, or aren't , superior men who deserve the best of the crop.

The administering of religion is normally dumb because most people are silly, but silly people too deserve the solace or truths of religion, as long as these are not outright lies. The parables of Jesus may be respected because these are true for particular cases and also for universal cases. The books of The Bible should be taught as literature on a par with other important books. I try not to be silly and to think for myself and not think what any old priest tells me.

I hope that religion is taught as part of anthropology, history, and sociology. I also hope religion is never taught as the definition of goodness, truth, and beauty. We need to pay close attention to curriculums.

Belinda,

I quite agree western culture cannot be understood in the absence of the foundation of Christianity, and Judaism. As you said earlier though they direct their message to the lowest common denominator and that denominator is a large portion of the American public that takes the bible literally.

[Belinda]

Belinda,
The existence of the other systems you mention do not require faith to believe in their existence, and the type of religious medium you are talking about is not that which is common to the population at large. I got that directly from the talking snake!! I do not doubt that religion served a purpose historically but as it is presently formulated it contributes to a dumbing down of a great portion of the population.

If faith is construed as pinning your choices to the unprovable, then the other systems depend on faith. Take socialism versus capitalism, for instance. I'm socialist not because I bloody know it's better than capitalism but because I have faith in equality and fair distribution That is my attitude, my faith. There is no divine arbiter who says there actually are, or aren't , superior men who deserve the best of the crop.

The administering of religion is normally dumb because most people are silly, but silly people too deserve the solace or truths of religion, as long as these are not outright lies. The parables of Jesus may be respected because these are true for particular cases and also for universal cases. The books of The Bible should be taught as literature on a par with other important books. I try not to be silly and to think for myself and not think what any old priest tells me.

I hope that religion is taught as part of anthropology, history, and sociology. I also hope religion is never taught as the definition of goodness, truth, and beauty. We need to pay close attention to curriculums.

Belinda,

I quite agree western culture cannot be understood in the absence of the foundation of Christianity, and Judaism. As you said earlier though they direct their message to the lowest common denominator and that denominator is a large portion of the American public that takes the bible literally.

Yes. I agree. I am wondering if everyone can be got to understand that idolatry is the psychology of complete certainty that one's interpretation is the only right interpretation.