From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Jan 03 2005 - 07:18:07 GMT
Hi Platt:
> Now I know you reject the Biblical story and all things religious as
> "moral authority." So my question to you and to preacher Edington and to
> anyone else who considers the taking of a human life to be evil is: "Where
> did you ever get that idea?" After all, killing other human beings has
> been considered acceptable moral behavior by societies for millennia.
I assume this is not a rhetorical question, and that you are sincere in
asking for my opinion.
What I call 'evil' is an act that is contradictory to Essence. Because I
understand the individual as an agent of Essence, I believe it is generally
wrong to take the life of any living creature. But like all existential
morality, that principle is also relative. I'll swat a mosquito, kill a
spider, or trap a mouse in the attic with no particular remorse, because I
place a higher value on my personal well-being than on the lives of insects
and rodents which interfere with the quality of my life. Yes, this is a
(relativistic) value judgment. However, I am an anthropocentrist. I see
the taking of a human life as the greatest evil because I believe every
human being is (potentially at least) a center (locus or agent) of value
itself. It's his purpose in life; if we terminate man we destroy his
essence-value, which ultimately is an act against ourselves.
The fact that my value system "reflects Commandment #6, 'Thou shall not
kill'', does not mean that I accept the Bible as my moral authority. I
think most religions subscribe to the sanctity of human life, and offer
scripture or commandments to support this tenet. Admittedly, having been
brought up in a nominally Christian household, I was undoubtedly influenced
early in life by such teachings. Had I been raised in a Greek household in
the time of Plato or Aristotle, I would have been taught the same values.
But if we believe in the sanctity of man, we don't need an 'authority' to
make us behave accordingly. That's why I have a problem with so-called
ethical philosophies designed to tell us how to live and act. By
standardizing ethics we diminish individual freedom. And freedom, as I see
it, is essential to the autonomy of man and the development of his
value-sense.
> You see, Ham, although this site brings up all sorts of philosophical
> issues, it all got started with Pirsig's "Inquiry into Morals" and his
> metaphysics which sets out the initial premise that the universe is
> structured morally, that is not put together by chance combinations of
> masses and energies as scientists claim, but by " . . . the principle of
> "rightness" which gives structure and purpose to the evolution of all life
> and to the evolving understanding of the universe which life has created."
> (Lila, 30)
That's a nice thought, Platt, and it has a certain poetic ring to it. But
if it were really true, why would men have committed atrocities throughout
human history? Is the human being somehow "out of touch" with this moral
world structure, or is the world structure itself defective? Possibly man,
unlike lesser creatures, is simply too stupid to know right from wrong. If
the universe was created for man, and morality was predesigned into its
structure, what then do you think man's role is? Or do you accept the
atheistic nihilism of your comrades here who would deny any purpose beyond
the Lilatic "evolving understanding of the universe"? I had given you more
credit than that, so please don't disappoint me again!
.
After all, it was you who questioned my moral integrity --
> God help us all
> because in your philosophy, who is to say anything is good or evil?
Essentially yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 03 2005 - 07:21:59 GMT