Dear Banjo,

You got me wrong: the spirit and the body are not the same.
Spirit clings to the body for a while, only while it finds it useful.

Dear David,

<<No offence, but that is still dribble to rational people.>>

Yes, so sad to see people live in such poverty as they limit themselves to the rational.

Dear McReal,

<<Morals and Ethics can be determined without references to stories, and without references to erections.>>

For some, for some McReal: there are people, like David, who cannot accept a moral/ethical system unless it satisfies their rational mind and yet others who cannot accept morality unless it satisfies other parts of their body (the stomach, I mean...), so are there those who cannot accept morality unless it satisfies their hearts.

If morals and ethics are to be based on the objective section of Reality alone, then they would be as thin as that section itself and blown away by the slightest wind.

Yuyutsu,

Can you supply a few examples of these non-rational moral/ethical deliberations thanks?

And I don’t mean accepting a god as a saviour or anything like that. There are many gods and lots of ideas concerning them. It is only arrogance to suggest you have the correct one.

I look forward to your reply.

David

Dear David,

<<Can you supply a few examples of these non-rational moral/ethical deliberations thanks?>>

Can one supply any moral/ethical deliberation that IS rational?

ANY moral deliberation that we have, had, or will ever have can serve as an example of irrationality. Though some may be superficially covered in rational explanations, if you dig deep enough, then at the bottom line they are all irrational!

One may argue for example that if you abstain from killing others, then life in general would be "better" as well as decrease your own chances, and your family's, to be killed. Or one may argue that molesting children is immoral because it increases suffering.

So what?

What's rational in wanting life to be "better"? What is "better" anyway? What's rational in wanting to live longer or have your family live longer? What's rational about wanting not to suffer or to decrease suffering in general?

You see, science can tell us that if we do such-and-such, then the consequence is likely to be death or suffering, but it cannot even touch the subject of why this should morally be avoided.

<<And I don’t mean accepting a god as a saviour or anything like that. There are many gods and lots of ideas concerning them. It is only arrogance to suggest you have the correct one.>>

I am not concerned with gods, only with God. Yes, people have lots of ideas, which obviously cannot all be objectively true at once, in fact none of them are (because God cannot be captured by the mind and the ideas therein), but why should it matter? so long as those various ideas help them to come closer to God, that's good and I welcome them!

The object of religion is not to give us information about the objective world - that's what science is for and can do much better. Religion, however (but that's NOT its main function, only a side-effect), can provide us with moral guidelines, something science can never do.

Sorry, I have no more time today, but I'll be happy to continue this conversation on Sunday.

Yuyutsu,

“Can one supply any moral/ethical deliberation that IS rational?”

You made the case yourself. One can work out the rational consequences of an action. Such as, if I allow a system where I can murder my neighbour, then I can’t complain if I am murdered. What is irrational about that?

Your disappointing answer of ‘so what’ to this is astounding. Wanting to live longer is rational as it is seen as an extension of life already lived. That is totally rational as are your other examples. It is irrational to not want them.

“You see, science can tell us that if we do such-and-such, then the consequence is likely to be death or suffering, but it cannot even touch the subject of why this should morally be avoided.”

Why jump into science now when we are discussing human ethical behaviour. Our rational side tells us that suffering should be limited and death avoided if possible.

“I am not concerned with gods, only with God. Yes, people have lots of ideas, which obviously cannot all be objectively true at once, in fact none of them are (because God cannot be captured by the mind and the ideas therein), but why should it matter? so long as those various ideas help them to come closer to God, that's good and I welcome them!”

Which god? You have a god and others have different gods which you dismiss. What are the objective criteria you use to identify your god as the true god? And what is the evidence that would be acceptable to all that you even know your particular god exists? And why is it good to come closer to your particular god? And what gives you the right to welcome others to your god? Has it told you to do this?

I agree; religion can supply moral guidelines as it’s a human construct and its guidelines human made. But religion can also distort ethical considerations and often does.

Ethics is largely based on rational consequential evaluation. Religion is a free-for-all-concoction of the interpretations of the words of others.

David

Sorry I am in a hurry, David, I will answer in full on Sunday.

Just one quick point for now:

Wanting to live longer, death avoided, etc., is not a moral imperative, but a biological desire. Biology is science, but no science can circularly prove its own importance, including its moral importance.

<<Our rational side tells us that suffering should be limited and death avoided if possible>>

Has your god told you that?...

Yuyutsu.

Wanting to live is a biological imperative but it is also a mental desire based in rationality. It is not a case of either or.

The flight or fight response when threatened with death or suffering can be understood by us all using our rational brain which develops a plan to escape. I don’t need a god to tell me that and neither do you. (Well, I sincerely hope you don’t)

Moral importance has bugger-all to do with it and is a meaningless phrase.

In your reply I would ask that you use your critical thinking skills and stop moving the goal posts all over the place.

If you need some help other than innate ability to be able to empathise about the suffering of others and an understanding that death should be avoided for as long as quality of life is good, then you are malfunctioning as a normal thinking human being.

I'm not particularly perturbed you think this way, if you do, as long as you only let it be manifested in private between consenting adults and it doesn't influence political decisions you make that are opposed to rational conclusions.

I am not going to spend an inordinate amount of time on mumbo jumbo answers.

Your response, to my questions so far, will tell me whether or not it is worth continuing.

David