Though only an opinion, there is no doubt in my mind that, if philosophy is readily defined as the love and pursuit of wisdom, and if wisdom is practically denoted as the wise use of knowledge, a wise person’s refusal to actively refute sophistry, once realizing that a certain knowledge advanced by deceitful people is opposed to human progress, is a denial of philosophical purpose. For a genuinely wise person to know that something is blatantly wrong, and do nothing to oppose it, is an insult to wisdom and makes that particular person derelict in a duty to the good. In not equating the ethics of wrongful deceit with what is good or evil, there is an innate fundamental quality, measured by individual human progress, in pursuing actions which will bring about a greater degree of lasting human satisfaction, and in opposing what will incur the opposite.
For example, human slavery does not produce lasting satisfaction for either the slaver or the slave, even if a profit for the slaver is produced by the involuntary work of the slave. This is because the slave receives no satisfaction whatsoever from being forced to work against his will, and from being punished if he refuses to work. And the slaver is always aware that the slave’s antipathy for him promotes feelings of rebellion in the slave, so that there can never exist a relationship between them based upon peace and mutual respect. Hence, continual human conflict, incurred through bondage, is unalterably opposed to true human progress.
Therefore, a person who knows that a condition of slavery exists, and fully realizes that such human degredation opposes the ends of philosophy, is derelict if she does not pursue an action to oppose the slavery. As Edmond Burke so eloquestly quipped, “It is necessary only for the good man (person) to do nothing for evil to triumph.”
I would think a big part of wisdom is the discernment over when to act and in what way to act. Wisdom is not merely a phenomenon that takes place within the skull.
Philosophy, being the love of wisdom, would therefore be ‘the love of knowing how to think and act’.
I don’t know is I read you right, but will give it a try.
Morals and ethics are tough to pindown.
The classic ancient Greeks approved of slavery and meshed it with their views on perfecting virtue.
It does not mean they were not interested in philosophy because they approved of slavery.
…My discussion of a similar topic from an earlier post.
(Anonymous Atheist 1) writes:
“What are the morals we should follow? Whose morals are correct? How do we agree upon a common set of morals? or even what are morals?”
(Anonymous Atheist 2) writes:
"Atheism is making real progress with destroying religion.)
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V:
Hi and thanks for your posts.
Like to get rid of all religion and replace it with morals without God? But cant decide on whose morals are the correct ones to replace religious morals?
The short answer:
Destroying others always destroys peace. It destroys your peace as well as the inner peace of the one that you destroys … look to the God of Inner Peace and the God of Nature for moral and ethical values. Even if you dump Yahweh, you can never dump these two Gods and live a flourishing, healthy peaceful life.
There is no answer no matter how long you make it that gives an absolute answer, for we will always come up with exceptions to the rule with this subject.
The question of universal morals and laws are the subject of numerous college classes and even with a Ph.D., it still depends on the person and their spiritual health when they answer such a question.
The arguments always seem to be around Moral Relativism vs Objectivism vs Determinism vs Emotivism vs Ethical subjectivism vs Moral Absolutism and around and around they go.
Add a few more components to the equation, such as Universality, The Golden Rule of Reciprocity, Natural Law
Theory, listening to the God of Inner Peace, Greater Good vs the Greater Right, Flourishing of the Species Theory and ‘Might Makes Right’ and people can get really stuck in analysis paralysis.
What is the best answer?
There is no best answer, other than it is a mix of all these in that yield us a ‘best fit’ equation to morals and ethics to live by.
All these concepts requires the individual to have thinking ability and a ‘conscious’ supported by spiritual values to come to the best fit for the circumstances at question. Humans have a conscious since they do not run solely by instinct as animals do. Without a spiritual based conscious they would turn to self-destruction.
This is a good topic to study up, for without having a feel for how this all works and without the fear of religion to keep humans in check, humans soon turn into monsters that sink to levels even below that of the beasts. You see, religion are humans brand of prepackaged morals. One just hopes that the various religious sects did a good job in developing the packages.
With atheists, many a time they lack spiritual values and are run by ill will, fear, hatred and a bloated ego. This goes for theists as well, so I am not singling out atheists as a problem. It just goes to illustrate that whether religious or not…it takes more to live a life at peace than belief in God or freedom from God.
You will never get people to agree on anything. Some are sick, some are well and the rest are somewhere in between. And some of the well ones get sick on other days and d it is the same with the sick ones.
The best we can do is to live ‘our life at peace’ and help promote peace within others.
There are 3 components necessary to live a happy life: CONTENTMENT, LOVE or COMPASSION and GRATITUDE. When we realize that happiness is there for the taking and it is independent from our circumstances it someday may sink in that there is nothing stopping us from being content and happy RIGHT NOW!
The choice is your if you have had enough pain. Examine which of these components is missing in your life.
As James Allen wrote in As a man Thinketh:
“To think well of all, to be cheerful with all, to patiently learn to find the good in all - such unselfish thoughts are the very portals of heaven; and to dwell day by day in thoughts of peace toward every creature will bring abounding peace to their possessor.”
Early records for moral codes goes back to Egypt with the 42 negative confessions. Scholars think the 10 commandments came from these. Yahweh also dictated over 600 other commandments and rules for the Jews to live my. So, even in the old days, it was a tough job trying to follow the rules.
Nowadays we can take courses that deal with morals, values and making laws but when you finish them you are sometime more confused than when you started.
Does this mean we should chuck the whole thing and give up?
No, for is we gave it no thought we would really be into deep trouble.
We have to do with morals and values the same as we do with life. We live it the best we can albeit imperfectly and do this until the day we die if we wish to flourish.
I heard a story one time in a Yoga lecture that illustrates this point. “Range is of the ego - Form is of the soul.” The only thing we need to be concerned with is how is our form when it comes to our practice and our life.
Here is a sample college level course on ethical values
Facts and Values
Lives to Envy, Lives to Admire
Foundations of Ethics—Theories of the Good
Foundations of Ethics—Theories of the Right
Thoughts on Religion and Values
Life’s Priorities
The Cash Value of a Life
How Do We Know Right from Wrong?
Cultures and Values
Questions of Relativism
Cultures and Values
Evolution, Ethics, and Game Theory
The Objective Side of Value
Better Off Dead
A Picture of Justice
Life’s Horrors
A Genealogy of My Morals
Theories of Punishment
Choice and Chance
Free Will and Determinism
Images of Immortality
Ethical Knowledge
Moralities in Conflict
Conclusions
Sample college level course on natural law:
The Philosophical Approach
The General Nature of Ethics
Law, Nature, Natural Law
Principles of Natural Law Theory
Greek Ideas of Nature and Justice
Aristotle’s Clarification of “Nature”
Aristotle on Justice and Politics
The Stoic Idea of Natural Law
Biblical Views of Nature and Law
Early Christians, Nature, and Law
Roman, Canon, and Natural Law
The Thomistic Synthesis
Late Medieval and Early Modern Views
Hobbes and Locke
Natural Law and the Founding Fathers
Descartes, Rousseau, and Kant
Can Rights Exist Without Natural Law?
The Question of Evolution
The Paradox of Cultural Relativism
The Problem of God
Current Applications—Jurisprudence
Current Applications—Bioethics
Current Applications—Social Ethics
The Eternal Return of Natural Law
All Course titles Teaching Company
You will find just one area as a foundation for this subject will not do very well. For as much as I like natural law as a guide to living right. We can see the Nazis used the same natural law argument to purify the races when they came to trial.
Sound crazy?
In nature doesn’t the strongest survive?
Balance is of the utmost importance with our quest for truth. The Nazis left out the God of Peace in their calculations and had to pay the price to this God when judgment day came along.
The Greeks used to teach harmony and balance in the Trivium in their schools. In the ‘tenants of reason’ they went into much details with the subject of harmony breaking it down into proportionally, prudence, balance, fitness and aptness. Not subjects you hear a lot of nowadays.
Proportionality and harmony would be most welcome subjects taught nowadays. So do not do as many of my atheists friends do when they try to think with ‘manacled minds’ of self imposed prejudice. For the best fit with morals and laws we need to a balance many areas as one thing only goes so far with giving us a good life.
When judgments have to be made, mistakes can and will happen the best we can do is give it an honest effort with rational thought. The ancient Greek philosophers knew that when passion rules the mind, that the only job left for reason is that of the subservient task to find cleaver ways to satisfy the passions. They called it “putting passion before reason.”
Both these areas of passion and reason where the foundation of much philosophical discussion of ethics and virtue with the ancient Greeks. Once we put passions before reason we are using prejudice as the foundation for our building plan, and sooner or later anything built on lies will fall. Rationality hopefully can leave the personal prejudice out of the picture.
Always remember…“honor dies where the interest lies.”
Laws are advertised as reason without passion, but usually fall short of their goal. As the truth is that which does not change and man made laws always seem to change.
3 Components of Rationality
1 - Rationality requires reflection.
2- Rationality is the ability to anticipate consequences.
3 - Rationality requires adherence to certain standards.
This being able to ‘rest satisfied’ is something the perfectionists lack with their rationality and why they will never be at peace until they stop collecting concepts and start using the concepts of peace generations.
We can examine our actions to see what useful tools for finding peace we offer to others. This evaluation says a lot about our own practice of generating inner peace. When you practice peace promotion with others you will reap inner peace promotion. When you practice destroying others peace, you will reap self destruction of inner peace.
I suggest any atheists wishing to find inner peace within their life adopt the creed of the atheists (their version of prepackaged morals) and become secular humanists as a good first start.
The ‘informal creed’ of atheism.
An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.
An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church.
An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.
An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.
He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.
He believes that we are our brother’s keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.â€
“The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles”
• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
Philosophy, which is the spiritual knowledge, travels in one direction in the circle of research. Science, which is the physical knowledge, travels in the opposite direction in the same circle of research. A Philosopher or a Scientist should travel extensively, so that they will meet at the same point in the circle. If they are in the middle of their journey only, they will be opposite to each other and therefore, will fight with each other. The Philosopher says that God is beyond this world and He is inexplicable.
The Scientist says that this world itself is God and accepts the inexplicable points in the nature. The Philosopher says that God pervades all over the world. The Scientist accepts the inexplicable nature of the world, though some concepts of the world are explicable. When God is inexplicable, the very characteristic nature of the God is only inexplicability. Philosopher calls the explicability as the creation and the inexplicability as God. The explicable part is agreed by both philosopher and scientist. The inexplicable part of the world is also accepted by both. This inexplicability is called as God by the Philosopher and the Scientist calls the same as inexplicability.
The Scientist says that there is wire and heat in a hot wire. The Philosopher says that the fire and the wire are co-existing. The only difference is in words. The Scientist calls heat and the Philosopher calls the heat as fire. The wire is the explicable part of the world, which is agreed by all. A Scientist calls the other inexplicable part as a property by calling it as heat. The Philosopher calls the same as the possessor of the property i.e., fire. The intensive heat is fire.
Thus the possessor of a property and the property are one and the same. The Scientist says the independent existence of the inexplicable power as an independent existence of a field of energy. The Philosopher says that there is a substratum of that field of energy, which is called as God and which, is not perceived so far. The Scientist accepts that they have to go still deeper. The Philosopher infers the existence of the substratum in such a deeper state. The argument of the Philosopher is that power cannot independently exist and needs a possessor.
Suppose the Sun is not seen due to overlapping cloud, it should not be concluded that the light transmitting through the cloud is independently existing power. The Scientist may see the Sun in future after piercing through the cloud. So, where is the difference or quarrel between a matured Philosopher and a matured Scientist? The inference of the Philosopher is based on the perception of a similar concept existing in the explicable part of the world. The Scientist does not believe this because it is not a perception of the direct concept. Both have not seen the Sun. Both accept the perception of light. Both accept that their search and research has not reached the end.
At this stage the Philosopher infers the Sun, whereas the Scientist does not infer the Sun but still accepts that the final truth is still to be achieved after piercing through the cloud of ignorance. At this point the support for the Philosopher is the Human Incarnation, which preaches the existence of such substratum. If the Scientist accepts the alternative genuine path of the miracles, the human incarnation definitely becomes the final authority about the existence of the possessor of such inexplicable power. If the Scientist has patience to reach the bottom most end, he will become a spiritual philosopher. An impatient Scientist existing in some middle place of the path becomes the atheist.
