Quote:
Originally Posted by neilmarr
***God says killing anyone intentionally is wrong***
You brought it up, Steve, so I don't think it's a hijack of your thread if we look at religion.
|
(Yes, I'm back from vaca!)
No problem with anyone bringing up religion. To be honest, my reference above was not intended to be a specific reference to any religious belief, but instead was supposed to be the hypothetical considerations of the person in the aforementioned dilemma.
Religion is a belief system. Religions, when shared, create societies, and like all societies, mold their own set of ethics to fit their belief-system.
When we talk about ethics (everywhere but in this thread, obviously), we tend to speak of it in terms of absolutes... that is Good, this is Bad, etc. Yet, with so many societies with so many belief systems, and therefore their own set of ethics, how can we speak in absolutes about ethics that shift, blend and even reverse depending on which society/societies we happen to subscribe to?
As Sparrow suggested, we may consciously or subconsciously shift our ethics from one set to another, as we go from spending time with our family, to going to work (yes, commuters can have their own set of ethics), to being at work, to going to church, to hanging with our bowling or golfing buds, to being alone with our significant others.
In the U.S., the conflict is well-represented by "the N-word"
, a word that is considered derogatory and verboten to use in some U.S. societies, but permitted in others. (Take note of how I've used it here.) Tracking the differences in ethics from one group to another is like tracking the use of this word in different groups.
So, if ethics are different for every group/society, and even the highest ethical points can be argued from one group to another, why do we consider ethics absolute and inviolable? Do we put too much weight on ethics in that case?
As our societies become more globally exposed and interdependent, we seem to be experiencing more conflicting ethics than ever before. Is there a way to solve this dilemma... if, indeed, this is a dilemma? Is there a need for a set of "super-ethics" that stand above all societies' ethics, and must be obeyed by all? Practically-speaking, would such a thing even be possible? And assuming it was possible... would it be desirable?