|
|
Tuesday, July 19, 2005Reasons to be MoralReflections of the Aquinas Academy on the debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Coppleston: The eminent Jesuit historian of philosophy Frederick Copleston debated the existence of God with Lord Bertrand Russell on BBC Radio in 1948. "I'm sure, Lord Russell, that you would say it was absolutely wrong to behave in the way that the guards in the German concentration camps behaved to the inmates." He [Russell] said: "Of course I would wish to say that is absolutely wrong, but it doesn't fit in with my theory, so I'm rather in a dilemma." Some may object: "But Bertrand Russell was a morally decent man and many believers are not morally decent people." That is not the point. The point is that Bertrand Russell had no reason to be moral. The believer does have a reason to be moral. The sad fact of the matter is that many a believer just doesn't hear and heed his/her conscience.This debate always brings to mind the old question of whether or not you need God in order to be moral, and especially as to how this relates to lawmaking and ethics. Most would answer God is essential to morality. However, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics did precisely this - set up a moral framework - without using God or other deistic proposals or prepositions. John of Salisbury, Duns Scotus, and Thomas Aquinas all used the "natural law" as the embodiment of a moral system (even though it required a God to remain fixed and absolute). Opposed to that system is the Hobbesian social contract and variants thereof from Locke, Rousseau, and Mill. Nozick and Rawls go back and forth on justice as fairness, etc. The question becomes which system allows for fixed moral values, so that in the case of Nazi concentration camps, the Nazis could not be excused for following an opposite and somehow legitimate and equal moral system. Relativism? Well, yes... that's precisely the problem all ethical and moral frameworks have to confront. The social contract fails miserably in this regard, as does Rawls' idea of fairness. The question of the necessity of God (or a "god" to be more theistic about it) as a fixed frame of reference for morals is indeed a great question to think about and reflect upon. When viewed in this light, defenders of absolute moral values have many more friends from different faiths than we do enemies -- something to keep in mind as we careen towards this "clash of civilizations" or ideas.
|
|
JEFFERSONIAD POLL: Whom do you support for Virginia Attorney General?1) John Brownlee2) Ken Cuccinelli AboutShaunKenney.com is one of Virginia's oldest political blogs, focusing on the role of religion and politics in public life. Shaun Kenney, 30, lives in Fluvanna County, Virginia.ContactThe Jeffersoniad
ArchivesMarch 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009
|
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Home