Post by Pompadoodle on Jul 17, 2010 7:50:50 GMT -5
This thread comes out of a brief exchange between myself and Echolilia on the WA resolution on stem cells thread. The relevant bits ran as follows:
Me
Echolilia
Me
So...the question is something like this:
What is the relationship between religion and ethics? In particular, is it impossible to have a valid and reasonable ethics outside of religion? Or conversely: Is a valid and reasonable ethics only possible outside of a religious framework?
Obviously, a lot hinges on what we mean by 'valid' and 'reasonable'. I'm going to put aside the definition issues for now, though.
There are 4 logically possible responses to this one:
1. A valid and reasonable ethics is only possible within a religious framework. (Echolilia's position)
2. A valid and reasonable ethics is only possible outside of a religious framework. (My position- and I'm fully expecting to be in a minority of one here).
3. A valid and reasonable ethics is possible with or without religion. This assumes that ethics can be based theistically or atheistically.
4. A valid and reasonable ethics is impossible. (The Nihilist position).
Enough from me. What do you think?
Me
Religion needs to be kept firmly outside of policy.
Echolilia
Re "religion needs to be kept firmly outside of policy", I personally don't see any valid or reasonable source of ethics outside of religion, and think ethics must guide policy, so I can't agree with you there.
Me
I take a diametrically opposite view here. That is: I don't see any possibility of valid or reasonable ethics inside of religion. However, this isn't the right place to argue about it. I might start a thread in the debating hall on this one- its an interesting issue, though one which can easily degenerate into a flame war.
So...the question is something like this:
What is the relationship between religion and ethics? In particular, is it impossible to have a valid and reasonable ethics outside of religion? Or conversely: Is a valid and reasonable ethics only possible outside of a religious framework?
Obviously, a lot hinges on what we mean by 'valid' and 'reasonable'. I'm going to put aside the definition issues for now, though.
There are 4 logically possible responses to this one:
1. A valid and reasonable ethics is only possible within a religious framework. (Echolilia's position)
2. A valid and reasonable ethics is only possible outside of a religious framework. (My position- and I'm fully expecting to be in a minority of one here).
3. A valid and reasonable ethics is possible with or without religion. This assumes that ethics can be based theistically or atheistically.
4. A valid and reasonable ethics is impossible. (The Nihilist position).
Enough from me. What do you think?