Morals, principles, values are all important. I would leap-frog to ethics as the focus.

That is what I want, persons with good ethics and demonstrated effectiveness pre-selected and elected (hopefully).

I believe that there are many such people around and from their demonstrated record of achievement and ethics, some have strong claims to lead, but they are often turned away (by themselves most likely) from a deserved role and contribution in government.

Ask yourself, do YOU (referring to readers) really, truly want someone with strong ethics and effectiveness to lead? -Because so many seem to prefer those who give them what they want, which is usually some advantage or other.

I wonder how many realise we are the ant farm of some god's kids.

David Korten also summaries belief systems (in a similar way to the author) in his essay “A New Story for a New Economy”

http://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/a-new-story-for-a-new-economy

According to this, there are 4 main types of belief.

“1. Distant Patriarch: My most important relationship is to a distant God who is Creation’s sole source of agency and meaning.

2. Grand Machine: I exist in a mechanistically interconnected cosmos devoid of agency and possessing no purpose or meaning.

3. Mystical Unity: Relationships, agency, and meaning are all artifacts of the illusion of separation; I am one with the timeless eternal One.

4. Living Universe: I am an intelligent, self-directing participant in a conscious, interconnected self-organizing cosmos on a journey of self-discovery toward ever-greater complexity, beauty, awareness, and possibility.”

Now No. 4 seems a little over my head, and I am more interested in No.3.

It is a belief system that seems to be shared by countless cultures over centuries in what we sometimes term “primitive tribes”. They believed in something greater than themselves, but not necessarily a single God, and more like an eternal and surrounding spirit.

But, there is the real possibility that there is a No. 5 now in the world, and it permeates most western countries, and it could be termed “A unit for exploitation and manipulation”

“To be born, educated, exploited and manipulated for work and consumption, and be of economic benefit to a select few”

david f – what a person believes may be a reasonable indicator of what they may do. If people are going to put themselves in positions of power and influence I don't see that there is a problem with the rest of us – who may be negatively affected by them - having some idea of their beliefs about life and where that may take them. RObert – I take your point that the questions may be answered dishonestly, nevertheless they are worth asking.

Stezza – I did not say anything about atheists having shared values, beliefs or goals. I simply pointed out the fact that if atheism is true there can be no objective, universal values or goals. In an atheistic universe we have come into existence unintentionally and there is no purpose to our existence – at least no purpose beyond the personal goals that each individual may choose to make up for themselves. Under those circumstances no subjective goal can be any better or worse than another.

The questions, what is life about? and, what is life for? Are perfectly intelligible and meaningful questions, even in an atheistic universe. If atheism is true, then life is ultimately about and for nothing, but in the mean-time it can be about and for whatever anyone chooses to say it is about or for. The only problem with that is, no choice can be the right or wrong one as right and wrong couldn't objectively exist.

spindoc – you say – “those in a position of influence can screw things up on a larger scale than those who do not have as much influence” – and that is exactly my point in saying that those in influence should be asked what they believe about life.

Rhosty – on what do you base the views about life you have expressed – are they just your own personally thought out conclusions or are they based on some other source? If they are your own thoughts can you give any reason why ,with all due respect, others should listen to your conclusions?

(cont)

Jardine – you say – “we have a foundational moral duty to seek truth, identify falsehood, and try to base our beliefs on the facts” – what is the basis of this “duty” which you claim we have? In an atheistic universe to whom could we owe any duty? If to anyone, why?
You say that atheism does not require the abnegation of ethics and I would agree with you. If atheism is true everyone can make up their own ethical claims. The problem is that there is no way of establishing which ethical claims should be listened to when there is a disagreement.

Why should your ethical beliefs trump your neighbours? You seem to think that you have access to “rational” ethics and presumably those who disagree with you, are irrational. But it may be quite rational for a young man, if he can get away with it, to kill his aged, sick grandmother to get her inheritance. Would that make it right for him to do so?

Plantagenent – I’m curious - what significance does it have whether or not I am the person in the article?

Rhian – the Minister for Transport does not only vote on matters relating to transport, they also get to vote about abortion if that comes up, as does the rest of parliament.

I would agree that politicians can act inconsistently with their professed beliefs and if they do, that inconsistency should be loudly proclaimed. At least though if a politician professes to base their worldview on Christian beliefs there is some standard against which their actions can be measured, but if atheism is true there is no standard at all against which actions can be measured. There is no objective rule to say that atheists cannot keep changing their position to whatever suits them at the time.

onthebeach – you want someone with “good ethics” in politics. That’s the issue, on what do people base their claim of what good ethics are. If atheism is true then there is no basis for any ethical claim beyond one’s personal preference.

Graham Preston

Dear JP,

What a person believes can be an indication of what a person does or possibly not. However, the only question of importance about a person in public office should be whether he or she is willing and able to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of that office. I know a man who has or had (he may be retired.) an important position in the civil rights office of the state of Connecticut. He is very prejudiced against black people. I know another man who works in that office who told me the prejudiced man works just as hard for the rights of black people as anyone else in the department does. The kind of question that Graham Preston wants to ask is intrusive and wrong. Is a person in public office of any kind willing and able to fulfill the responsibility of that office is the only question that need be answered. The prejudiced person is also a religious person who apparently feels that his oath of office obliges him to take on the responsibility and the duties required by that office regardless of his personal feelings or beliefs on the matter. He does his job. That is all that is necessary.