Can we create moral choice through lies about ethics?

[MMX2010]

Maybe this true, but personally it doesn't really matter to me.  The argument for the ends justifying the means has never appealed to me as a proper way of analyzing things. 

 

I know.  But neither can we universalize your "I don't want to call want to call the better behaviors of Christians either Ethical or Moral."  perspective.  Worse, if we did universalize your perspective, Christians would be much more likely to behave much, much worse out of spite, annoyance, or despair. 

 

 

 

 

 At least when we argue from universals, first principles, and the truth, we have an argument firmly grounded in reality.  Also, by taking the position that someone is incapable of understanding truth, you have taken away their autonomy to make these decisions themselves.

 

Not true.  I firmly believe that less than 95% of people are capable of handling truth, but I also know that those 95% of people have autonomy because it's impossible to violently remove their autonomy. 

 

 

 

 

I would rather leave the door open to philosophy for those who can break out of the hive, than bar it shut in my general frustration for other peoples perceived inability to think. 

 

There's an important difference between accounting for a lack of virtue and assuming a lack of virtue.  I'm accounting for the fact that 95% of people simply cannot handle philosophy, not assuming that 95% of people cannot.  (Yes, I know that my 95% is an estimate, but if you'd like to argue that my estimate should be 75% of lower, I'm all ears.) 

[Troubador]

Forgive me but isn't any moral/ethical system predicated on controlling people's behaviour?

 

Also the fundamental tenets of Christianity are:

 

'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

 

And:

 

'Love your neighbor as yourself'

 

The gospel supersedes the Old Testament, and hence is the foundation of Christian ethics more than the Ten Commandments are. I appreciate the nuances of theological inquiry are not the atheists natural habitat, but in essence the foundation of Christian ethics is love.

 

By all means take issue with the existence of God, but I think there is more than enough to work with re: rationalist secular ethics that should benefit benefit all of humanity and not just an intellectual elite.

[WasatchMan]

Forgive me but isn't any moral/ethical system predicated on controlling people's behaviour?

 

Also the fundamental tenets of Christianity are:

 

'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

 

And:

 

'Love your neighbor as yourself'

 

The gospel supersedes the Old Testament, and hence is the foundation of Christian ethics more than the Ten Commandments are. I appreciate the nuances of theological inquiry are not the atheists natural habitat, but in essence the foundation of Christian ethics is love.

 

By all means take issue with the existence of God, but I think there is more than enough to work with re: rationalist secular ethics that should benefit benefit all of humanity and not just an intellectual elite.

 

Yes, moral/ethical systems are also behavioral systems. 

 

However the question this thread is asking is, are all behavioral systems morality and ethics, or is morality and ethics a subset of 'behavioral system' described by being derived from universals, first principles, and truth, and in exclsuion to behavioral systems derived from a lie?

 

Also, I don't know how love describes the threat of burning in hell for eternity for lacking faith in god and not following gods laws.  That is generally called a violation of the NAP.

[WasatchMan]

 

I know.  But neither can we universalize your "I don't want to call want to call the better behaviors of Christians either Ethical or Moral."  perspective.  Worse, if we did universalize your perspective, Christians would be much more likely to behave much, much worse out of spite, annoyance, or despair. 

 

I really am not interested in pragmatic arguments, MMX.  I am trying to have a conversation on the meaning of fundamental philosophical words (ethics and morality).  Its not that "I don't want to call want to call the better behaviors of Christians either Ethical or Moral."  (FYI - putting that in quotes is pretty slimy since I never said that), its that I want to use philosophical words correctly.  If you want to make the argument that the words morality and ethics applies to all behavioral systems with good outcomes OR that precise language doesn't matter because people can't think anyway, then you can make those arguments.  If you really want to talk about the implications of being precise in philosophy, and how this is hard for people, I would recommend starting another thread on that topic to address that.

 

Also, I don't care if identifying that you can only call things morality and ethics when they are derived from truth annoys every Christian and causes them to misbehave more, at least they won't be able to hide behind their actions being moral.

[MMX2010]

I really am not interested in pragmatic arguments, MMX.  I am trying to have a conversation on the meaning of fundamental philosophical words (ethics and morality).  If you really want to talk about the implications of being precise in philosophy, and how this is hard for people, I would recommend starting another thread on that topic to address that.

 

 

I know, and I find that interesting.  Because, at the end of the day, philosophy is supposed to influence people - not space aliens, not robots, not vacuum cleaners - people.  Refusing to consider how your philosophical opinions affects people strikes me as an extreme contradiction at the heart of the definition of philosophy.

 

 

I don't care if identifying that you can only call things morality and ethics when they are derived from truth annoys every Christian and causes them to misbehave more, at least they won't be able to hide behind their actions being moral.

 

 

As a pragmatic person, let me ask a pragmatic question: There are 168 hours in a week, of which approximately 56 hours are spent sleeping, and another 56 hours are spent working.  That leaves about 56 hours of free time.  How many of those hours are spent talking to people in real life for longer than ten minutes at a clip?

 

I ask because someone who doesn't care that his philosophical opinions might incite 2 billion people to despair-induced violence doesn't strike me as someone who spends a lot of time talking to people. 

[WasatchMan]

I know, and I find that interesting.  Because, at the end of the day, philosophy is supposed to influence people - not space aliens, not robots, not vacuum cleaners - people.  Refusing to consider how your philosophical opinions affects people strikes me as an extreme contradiction at the heart of the definition of philosophy.

 

 

Philosophy is actual the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.  Truth does not care about how it affects people - it just is. I think you have gotten it confused with politics.  However, you have made it abundantly clear on this forum that you are willing to manipulate people to achieve certain ends, so I am not too surprised by your confusion between the two disciplines.

 

Also, I find it "interesting" (to use your style of language) that you keep calling my question on what the words morality and ethics fundamentally apply to as my "opinion". I am not talking about opinions. I am trying to generate a truth statement in a fundamental discipline of philosophy (ethics), not an opinion.

 

Ethics is not a question for space aliens, robots, or vacuum cleaners, as you so condescendingly assert my question to be.  It is an essential question for people.  If we can't properly define morality and ethics, I don't understand how anything else in ethics after that matters.

 

I am talking about whether it is a true statement to say that ethics and morality only apply to behavioral system derived from universals and first principles, and cannot be applied to behavioral systems derived from lies.  I am not sure why you think I am talking about my opinion. Is there not a correct answer to what you can call morality?  Or am I to believe you are claiming that ethics is relative?

[MMX2010]

Is there not a correct answer to what you can call morality?  Or am I to believe you are claiming that ethics is relative?

 

Those two questions are why I referenced my earlier thought-experiment.

 

It is definitionally correct to tell a three-year old child the unfiltered truth about death, but it is not emotionally correct, nor ethically correct - because she is three years old. 

 

Once you admit that there's a fundamental and immutable difference between children and adults, you open yourself up to admitting that there's a fundamental and immutable difference between adults and adults.  Some adults can handle the unfiltered delivery of moral truths - (like you advocate) - while others simply cannot. 

 

Whenever you are challenged by this easily-observed series of differences, you reply that "you're not interested in a pragmatic discussion". 

 

So my overall answer is that the ethical definitions are not relative, but an individual's ability to handle any set of ethical truths is relative.  And though you try very hard to frame this discussion in terms of truths, you're really broadcasting the opinion that unfiltered delivery of moral truths is the best way to create an ethical Earth. 

 

My suggestion that you actually talk to people was meant to get you to test your opinion by actually applying it.  I predict that you'll quickly run into insurmountable problems within one month of devotedly testing your opinion. 

[WasatchMan]

So my overall answer is that the ethical definitions are not relative, but an individual's ability to handle any set of ethical truths is relative. 

 

 

I can respect that answer as true.  We may differ on strategy on how to handle that results truth, but I think it is a good way to put it for sure.

 

 

 

 And though you try very hard to frame this discussion in terms of truths, you're really broadcasting the opinion that unfiltered delivery of moral truths is the best way to create an ethical Earth. 

 

 

I have not made any suggestions about practical application of this idea in this thread, I have barley even been able to get into the definitions let alone the best way to handle the answers.

 

Look, I am on a philosophy forum asking questions about the true nature of morality. If I can't ask these questions here - than I can't ask these questions. So you'll have to excuse me because I am going to ask me some tough questions.

[MMX2010]

I have not made any suggestions about practical application of this idea in this thread, I have barley even been able to get into the definitions let alone the best way to handle the answers.

 

Look, I am on a philosophy forum asking questions about the true nature of morality. If I can't ask these questions here - than I can't ask these questions. So you'll have to excuse me because I am going to ask me some tough questions.

 

You can do whatever you want.  Don't give up now. 

 

When you look at those two questions: (1) What is the definition of moral behavior?  (2) How can we best spread moral truths to everyone? - you like to analyze them separately.  But when I look at those two questions, I like to analyze them at the same time - refusing to separate them.  These are both opinion-based, aesthetic-preferences - NOT moral ones. 

 

Most importantly, differentiating between truths and opinions (aesthetic preferences) frees you to pursue your aesthetic preferences without wrongfully believing that either you or the people who disagree with you are being immoral.  When you accept this, you can find people who share your aesthetic preferences and go on enjoyable adventures together. 

[WasatchMan]

 

When you look at those two questions: (1) What is the definition of moral behavior?  (2) How can we best spread moral truths to everyone? - you like to analyze them separately.  But when I look at those two questions, I like to analyze them at the same time - refusing to separate them.  These are both opinion-based, aesthetic-preferences - NOT moral ones. 

 

 

 

The definition of "morality" is an opinion-based aesthetic-preference?

 

That is wrong by implication, since the purpose of morality is to differentiate between what is good and evil and what is a opinion-based aesthetic-preference.  You even had to use the word "moral" to communicate to me the opposite of "option-based, aesthetic-preferences".  We would have a huge problem if the definition of moral was "opinion-based, aesthetic-preferences", but the conclusions weren't.  With this methodology, you define anything as moral, and then out of this "opinion-based, aesthetic-preferences" you somehow end up with conclusions the opposite of "opinion-based, aesthetic-preferences"? You do realize you make some pretty bold assertions with no argument. 

[Troubador]

Ok now I am confused either the logical and rationally foundation is applicable to everyone, or it's not therefore universal. If you are saying it is impossible for a religious based belief system to at least have the capacity to be moral/ethical you are also saying it is impossible for them to also be immoral and unethical. Now I am sure you are not trying to hand out a free pass here!

 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood, if this is a moral/ethical system that by design is ONLY to be applied to secularists then of course disregard the above.

[MMX2010]

The definition of "morality" is an opinion-based aesthetic-preference?

 

That's not what I said. 

 

The pronoun "these" refers to our aesthetic-preferences to (1) in your case, handle the first question without considering the second, and (2) in my case, to handle both questions simultaneously. 

[WasatchMan]

Ok now I am confused either the logical and rationally foundation is applicable to everyone, or it's not therefore universal. If you are saying it is impossible for a religious based belief system to at least have the capacity to be moral/ethical you are also saying it is impossible for them to also be immoral and unethical. Now I am sure you are not trying to hand out a free pass here!

 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood, if this is a moral/ethical system that by design is ONLY to be applied to secularists then of course disregard the above.

 

The goal of ethics is to be universally applicable.  Just because someone does not accept a universal ethical system does not mean universal ethical conclusions does not apply to them.  Murder is still evil for sociopaths.  It is a good question though, and is definitely a challenge for ethics in that it would be a lot simpler if everyone had empathy.

 

I would recommend reading UPB for an in-depth analysis of universal ethics.

[Troubador]

I know, and I quite agree that individuals must be held accountable for their actions, but I think the vigor with which you make your case: that any action cannot be called trully moral or ethical without being first founded in logic and reason the reverse must also be true that a trully immoral/unethical action cannot also be thusly labeled without comprehension and knowing infraction of said logical/ reasoned ethical system.

 

Perhaps this all hinges on a notion that somehow being in possession of a religous/ spiritual belief is somehow fundamentally incompatible with logic and reason. Which I think is an increasingly prevailing view in this day and age, but is not necessarily true. Is it not possible that in UPB's terms that a religous belief can come under aesthetic preference?

 

I noted Stefan's love of bringing up jazz music by way of an example, which at first glance looks pretty harmless enough, but when you consider the violence between the mods and rockers in the second half of the 20th Century I think it is pretty easy to make the case that musical aesthetic preferences have been involved in decidedly unpreferable behaviour. Such a case is even easier to make if you move to sports teams supporters. Here in the UK we have had many occasions of football hooliganism. All over aesthetic preferences.

 

To conclude if someone is willing to accept rational/logical ethics as the gold standard (or perhaps even merely entertain the notion therof) for human interaction, then any other thing they choose to believe (ie which football team is best, their favorite musical genre and yes wether they choose to believe in deities, Taos, animal spirits, magical prancing moon ponies or whatever), shouldn't really be a barrier to discussion. Of course that's entirely up to an individual who they choose to freely associate with, but I would possibly volunteer it is wisest to associate with those with aspiration to virtue.

[MMX2010]

I know, and I quite agree that individuals must be held accountable for their actions, but I think the vigor with which you make your case: that any action cannot be called trully moral or ethical without being first founded in logic and reason the reverse must also be true that a trully immoral/unethical action cannot also be thusly labeled without comprehension and knowing infraction of said logical/ reasoned ethical system.

 

Perhaps this all hinges on a notion that somehow being in possession of a religous/ spiritual belief is somehow fundamentally incompatible with logic and reason. Which I think is an increasingly prevailing view in this day and age, but is not necessarily true. Is it not possible that in UPB's terms that a religous belief can come under aesthetic preference?

 

 

Thanks for this post.  It helped me clarify a lot of the frustration I have with both WastachMan and some forms of ostracism. 

 

Religious people succeed, not because they understand their actions at the level WastachMan demands, but because their religious systems are relatively more successful at getting them to behave morally. 

 

In a seemingly unrelated metaphor, I'm changing my interactions with women by constantly telling myself, "I don't need her to feel certain ways about me, I just need her to behave in certain ways."

[WasatchMan]

I know, and I quite agree that individuals must be held accountable for their actions, but I think the vigor with which you make your case: that any action cannot be called trully moral or ethical without being first founded in logic and reason the reverse must also be true that a trully immoral/unethical action cannot also be thusly labeled without comprehension and knowing infraction of said logical/ reasoned ethical system.

 

 

I don't know what "the vigor with which you make your [my] case" has to do with this conversation, given it is a technical one on philosophical definitions.  It would seem like you are trying to smuggle something else into this.

 

Yes, you are correct the reverse is true, however it is not the point.  My point is not "any action cannot be called truly moral or ethical without being first founded in logic".  Actions can be classified as moral or immoral as such (murder is always immoral), that is the whole point of UPB.  However, what you can't say is someone is acting with morality when their actions are moral but their methodology to achieve this behavior (that happens to be moral/immoral - universally) was derived from a lie.

 

As I said in my last response to this same point "murder is still immoral to a sociopath".  The reason this is true is because if we universalize ethics we have developed something that is objective, not subjective.  Objective things don't care if people can comprehend it or not for it to be valid.  Gravity still existed before Newton discovered the mathematical relationship between mass and gravitational force. Would you say that someone who hits a golf ball is acting as physicist?

 

Perhaps this all hinges on a notion that somehow being in possession of a religous/ spiritual belief is somehow fundamentally incompatible with logic and reason. Which I think is an increasingly prevailing view in this day and age, but is not necessarily true. Is it not possible that in UPB's terms that a religous belief can come under aesthetic preference?

 

 

This is the second time I have had to remind you that this was stated in the OP:

 

 

While there are a lot of things that I will talk to Christians about, such as politics, economics, physics, personal issues, etc., morality is one thing I would rather not talk to Christians about. This is because Christians derive their morality from an all powerful god who blackmails them into either blindly accepting for an eternity in paradise or rejecting for an eternity in hell.  In other words, Christian ethics are derived from a lie.  They have short-circuited the need to prove anything about their morality, except for whether or not they know what god wants and can speak for it.  How can you have a talk about morality with someone who's ethical premise is "god says so".

 

How can you have gotten from this that my claim is "religious/ spiritual belief is somehow fundamentally incompatible with logic and reason"? My central point is that morality is one thing that region can not claim logic or reason in because central to religion is that morality is derived from the dictates of a supernatural universal overlord.

 

 

 

I noted Stefan's love of bringing up jazz music by way of an example, which at first glance looks pretty harmless enough, but when you consider the violence between the mods and rockers in the second half of the 20th Century I think it is pretty easy to make the case that musical aesthetic preferences have been involved in decidedly unpreferable behaviour. Such a case is even easier to make if you move to sports teams supporters. Here in the UK we have had many occasions of football hooliganism. All over aesthetic preferences.

 

 

Would you say that someone was a moral person because they kept their family together for the love of jazz music? I would claim you shouldn't because there is no way to universalize how love for jazz music applies to morality. Good and evil (what we are talking about) are not aesthetic preferences.

 

 

To conclude if someone is willing to accept rational/logical ethics as the gold standard (or perhaps even merely entertain the notion therof) for human interaction, then any other thing they choose to believe (ie which football team is best, their favorite musical genre and yes wether they choose to believe in deities, Taos, animal spirits, magical prancing moon ponies or whatever), shouldn't really be a barrier to discussion. Of course that's entirely up to an individual who they choose to freely associate with, but I would possibly volunteer it is wisest to associate with those with aspiration to virtue.

 

I am not talking about "gold standards".  I am talking about a definition of morality that can be philosophically universalized. 

 

In my mind we have two choices when trying to achieve this universal definition for morality:

1) Morality is behavior derived from the philosophical discipline of ethics, using a methodology that applies universals, first principles, and truth to behavior

2) Morality is behavior that achieves good and/or just ends

[WasatchMan]

Religious people succeed, not because they understand their actions at the level WastachMan demands, but because their religious systems are relatively more successful at getting them to behave morally. 

 

I am not demanding action out of anyone.  I am making a technical argument about the definition of morality and how to apply it.  If it turns out that we can't universalize what religious people do as morality, that takes away nothing from their success, it just means that philosophically speaking we shouldn't call what they do morality.  I would be fine calling what they do successful, since this is a word about the ends one achieves.  I just don't think morality is about the ends, rather I think it is about the methodology. 

[Troubador]

WasatchMan, I think we are getting somewhere here. I would 100% agree that morality/ethics, require intent. It is perfectly possible to perform an outwardly moral act, and yet not have possessed the intent to necessarily arrive at a moral outcome.

 

If a married person refuses a sexual advance from a third party, but they do so out of a complete lack of attraction they haven't been particularly moral. If by contrast the refusal stemmed from a realization of virtue (a genuine respect for their spouse and desire not to put any children's futures at risk), then it IS decidedly moral.

 

Zeroing in on religion again we do come up against many potential pitfalls, so let's examine an issue in greater depth to see if we can get some clarity. Take the issue of homosexuality. It is I would say safe to say that in Christianity homosexuality is generally defined as a sin. Now as we have seen wider society evolve (mostly! There is still some ground to gain here) past this attitude, Christian thought is often very much stuck in the dark ages here.

 

Now of course the moral justification of this comes from the bible, and the belief that that the bible is the word of God. It is also quite obviously very morally wrong that Christianity has done this and continues to do so (at least to my way of thinking). So we have I think a perfect example of what I think you are trying to get at. The very belief in God not only fails at basic morality it is actually by this process engaged in an actively unethical position. It is by no means the only one, Catholic prohibitions on birth control, suicide bombers. The list is extensive.

 

In the light of all this I would have no trouble with your assertion, if only every religion and religious individual behaved in this manner. Were that the case I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but it's not. There ARE religious individuals that put stock in encouragement of personal relationships with God and personal virtue.

 

If that focus on virtue trumps whatever a religious organization like a church denomination tries to indoctrinate it's parishioners with then, I believe you have someone you can meaningfully discuss rational secular ethics with, but and this is crucial the moment you have a disagreement where the assertion "because God said so" or variations thereof is made I concede you have someone who you would struggle to converse meaningfully with.

[WasatchMan]

WasatchMan, I think we are getting somewhere here. I would 100% agree that morality/ethics, require intent. It is perfectly possible to perform an outwardly moral act, and yet not have possessed the intent to necessarily arrive at a moral outcome.

 

If a married person refuses a sexual advance from a third party, but they do so out of a complete lack of attraction they haven't been particularly moral. If by contrast the refusal stemmed from a realization of virtue (a genuine respect for their spouse and desire not to put any children's futures at risk), then it IS decidedly moral.

 

Zeroing in on religion again we do come up against many potential pitfalls, so let's examine an issue in greater depth to see if we can get some clarity. Take the issue of homosexuality. It is I would say safe to say that in Christianity homosexuality is generally defined as a sin. Now as we have seen wider society evolve (mostly! There is still some ground to gain here) past this attitude, Christian thought is often very much stuck in the dark ages here.

 

Now of course the moral justification of this comes from the bible, and the belief that that the bible is the word of God. It is also quite obviously very morally wrong that Christianity has done this and continues to do so (at least to my way of thinking). So we have I think a perfect example of what I think you are trying to get at. The very belief in God not only fails at basic morality it is actually by this process engaged in an actively unethical position. It is by no means the only one, Catholic prohibitions on birth control, suicide bombers. The list is extensive.

 

Well put.

 

 

In the light of all this I would have no trouble with your assertion, if only every religion and religious individual behaved in this manner. Were that the case I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but it's not. There ARE religious individuals that put stock in encouragement of personal relationships with God and personal virtue.

I get that there are people who claim to be religious, but do not act that out and are just there for community. However, I do not see how you can separate morality being derived from god from religion (especially Abrahamic religions like Christianity). Morality being possible because of an all powerful god to judge you is central to a Christianity and many other beliefs.  That structure (having god as the "objective" arbitrator of behavior) is why religion even exists. In other words, you can't claim to be a Christian and not hold that god creates moral law.  This why I have used the analogy that you can't call someone a soccer fan that hates sports where people kick balls.  They are antithetical concepts.

 

 

If that focus on virtue trumps whatever a religious organization like a church denomination tries to indoctrinate it's parishioners with then, I believe you have someone you can meaningfully discuss rational secular ethics with, but and this is crucial the moment you have a disagreement where the assertion "because God said so" or variations thereof is made I concede you have someone who you would struggle to converse meaningfully with.

 

Since "because god said so" is where religious people derive their moral claims, I don't see how you could have a meaningful conversation about rational secular ethics with them.  The minute they don't like what you are saying and don't have a good argument for why, the "god said so" argument will just be invoked.

 

This would be like trying to have a physics discussion with Deepak Chopra, the minute you start to get somewhere meaningful, he is just going to bust some woo all over you.

[MMX2010]

 

 

 

Since "because god said so" is where religious people derive their moral claims, I don't see how you could have a meaningful conversation about rational secular ethics with them.  The minute they don't like what you are saying and don't have a good argument for why, the "god said so" argument will just be invoked.

 

 

 

Not true, WastachMan. 

 

Christians derive their morality from "God said so" PLUS a litany of observable (and non-observable) examples of God's goodness permeating the universe. 

[WasatchMan]

 

Not true, WastachMan. 

 

Christians derive their morality from "God said so" PLUS a litany of observable (and non-observable) examples of God's goodness permeating the universe. 

 

 

That sounds nice.

[MMX2010]

That sounds nice.

 

It doesn't sound nice.  It is true in every case.  Every discussion with a Christian begins with an example of God's divine goodness and mercy. 

[Troubador]

I'll try and distill this down to its most simple:

 

Ethics/ Morality need to be founded on aspiration to virtue, actually "because God says so" doesn't satisfactorily cut it.

WasatchMan I dealt with your contention re: God creating morality, but I'll mention it again. If a Christian holds the belief of God the creator, and the physical world contains a logical rational system of ethics within it, said Christian can follow said logical/rational system without contradiction.

 

The only issue that arises is when religious folk follow a dogma without question, but it is a gross misrepresentation to paint all religious people like this.

[WasatchMan]

I'll try and distill this down to its most simple:

 

Ethics/ Morality need to be founded on aspiration to virtue, actually "because God says so" doesn't satisfactorily cut it.

WasatchMan I dealt with your contention re: God creating morality, but I'll mention it again. If a Christian holds the belief of God the creator, and the physical world contains a logical rational system of ethics within it, said Christian can follow said logical/rational system without contradiction.

 

The only issue that arises is when religious folk follow a dogma without question, but it is a gross misrepresentation to paint all religious people like this.

 

And I have dealt with your contention (whether you want to accept it or not - just don't act like I haven't put an argument up against it, it comes off disingenuous like we have not been having a conversation about this point for a while). I don't believe Christianity is anything that any individual Christian believes it to be. It is an ideology with several central claims to it.  One of these central claims is that morality is derived from god.  I can't use language to describe this belief system (that God dictates right and wrong behavior) any other way than calling it Christianity.  Is there a different word I should use?

 

If someone who labeled themselves a Christian wanted to discuss ethics with me, and would first accept that "God said  so" is not a valid claim for morality, than that would obviously be different.  I don't think it is fair to call that person a Christian, because this is like saying a Christian can claim not be believe in god.  One the mains reasons there is the concept "God" is to set up an ultimate arbitrator of behavior.  I don't know how you can believe in God but not believe he cares about your behavior.  I guess anyone can claim to be a Christian though.

 

The central point of this thread isn't even to determine whether any individual that calls themselves a "Christian" is capable of a moral conversation, it is "can we create moral choice through lies about ethics".  I have already given you the two universal definitions of morality that this thread is suppose to be focused on:

 

 

In my mind we have two choices when trying to achieve this universal definition for morality:

1) Morality is behavior derived from the philosophical discipline of ethics, using a methodology that applies universals, first principles, and truth to behavior

2) Morality is behavior that achieves good and/or just ends

[Troubador]

Do not imagine I do not value the contribution you have made in starting this thread. I believe it is an important question, and you have engaged with both erudition and courtesy. So thank you. I am not attempting to be disingenuous, but it seems at least to me that the issue we are having stems from the definition of Christian we are using. I would agree accepting your definatition of Christian, what you say follows logically.

 

The sticking point is I'm not entirely convinced this definition of Christian really works from a practical point of view. There are dozens of denominations with wildly different doctrines and dogmas, all of which are strikingly diverse. What is a cherished belief to one sect is heresy to another. Making that specific point about God being the source of morality, and it's ultimate arbiter does not automatically make secular morality and ethics anathema to it. If in so doing that doesn't make those individuals Christian enough for you then fair enough, but that is a subjective observation on your part.

 

The central tenets in Christianity are love God, and love your neighbour as yourself for a large number of people. Neither of which are incompatible with secular ethics. I could just as easily argue with that as a base for Christianity and that Christians who for example treat homosexuals abominably are failing in that basic tenet and are therefore not really christians. I am reticent however to do that as I am not inclined to let Christianity off the hook so easily.

 

The definition of Christian I believe is wisest to adopt is very simply, merely any individual or organisation that self identifies as Christian. Accept or reject that definition as you wish, as you have made clear you are willing to discuss secular ethics with such people although you may choose to not define them as Christian because they are willing to accept secular ethics at all. However that is more than good enough for me.

[MMX2010]

And I have dealt with your contention (whether you want to accept it or not - just don't act like I haven't put an argument up against it, it comes off disingenuous like we have not been having a conversation about this point for a while). I don't believe Christianity is anything that any individual Christian believes it to be. It is an ideology with several central claims to it.  One of these central claims is that morality is derived from god. 

 

The central claim is more complex than that.  It is, "Morality comes from god, and look at how much better it is when people follow god's commandments than when they don't."  Hence, the central claim is more like, "Morality comes from obedience to God's commandments, which are presumed to be good based more on their outcomes than on their divine decree." 

 

You want to focus on the divine decree aspect, rather than the outcomes.