Dear Mike
pretty much all of what you are raising is either

1/ Negotiations for a mutually satisfactory outcome. (do for others...)

2/ Or.. raises questions where theological position may influence the decision. e.g Stem Cell research.

In principle, harvesting useful cells from embryos may be beneficial in the treatment of certain diseases, but I've heard passionate arguments that adult stem cells can provide the same results, its just that the funding momentum and the politics of the area is controlled currently by the 'embryonic' stem cell mob.

To me, the definition of 'life' and a living soul is from conception.
This is theological but I also feel it is common sense.

This is where in the absence of Theology, "ethics" gets verrrrrry messy or at least 'flexible'. Who is to say it is unethical to clone, to use embryo's for various purposes, to create 'super'men and women by genetic manipulation etc....where do we draw the line of how mature an embryo is b4 'manipulating' it ? etc.. It will boil down to 'opinion'.

I've ranted about the atheistic/secular society being a 'ship without a rudder in the sea of life' problem many times, and this is where it becomes clear.

CHALLENGE -Have a read of 1 Corinthians chapter 15, then tell me on the basis of evidence, why you reject it (If u do)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

My work here is done.

We have now come full circle, from a position where MikeM is "astonished by the lack of importance that most posters seem to accord to ethics training", to the point where "there are occasions in life when you can't squib a decision by saying that there are two ethical answers and it is not possible to choose."

I get the strong impression that the overriding objective of ethics studies must be to train people to raise and discuss ethical issues, so long as they don't actually have to come to a conclusion one way or the other. A mutually satisfying debating society, perhaps, where the outcome is to agree that there are perhaps "two ethical answers and it is not possible to choose", at which point you can walk away, satisfied with a job well done.

What has yet to be answered is what skills have been acquired along the way that exceed and surpass those learned at one's mother's knee. Improved debating skills - tick. Knowledge of the "language" of ethics - tick. Improved decisions? Not proven.

I am sure that professional ethicists will make a great deal of money from their ability to lecture folk on the need to "do the right thing", but that is not necessarily going to add to the sum total of either happiness or goodness in the world.

Unless of course you are a professional ethicist with a degree in ethical studies, in which case you are firmly on the gravy train.

BOAZ,

You raise interesting issues. Although they stray from Claus's article, let me respond within 350 words.

I don't share your faith. Religion is unlike gravity or atomic theory, decided on the balance of evidence for and against. Facts won't convince a Christian to become an atheist or vice versa.

You say, "in the absence of Theology, 'ethics' gets verrrrrry messy or at least 'flexible'".

Yes it does. In the presence of theology it also does. You need only consider Christian theological debate since Thomas Aquinas about "just war theory".

C19 English Utilitarian philosophers set out to build a theology-independent ethical framework. Flawed in detail, it succeeded in grand design: our legal code - a reflection (admittedly distorted) of our ethical code - appeals to no religious doctrine for underpinnings.

When does life begin? The facts are clear. For human eggs, when they ripen and leave the ovary. For sperm, when they mature and leave the testes. In both cases life is brutally short, except in the tiny chance that they conjoin and form an embryo. Even then their joint chance of survival is no more than 50:50. Many embryos spontaneously abort before a mother even realises she is pregnant.

So what's special about the moment of conception?

You are right, BOAZ, that drawing the line for stem cell research or abortion becomes arbitrary. But a society can still reach a majority consensus as to where that line should be, as indeed we have.

Other societies reach different consensus.

Princeton philosopher Peter Singer even thinks that consensus is possible that that line could be after live birth, http://www.equip.org/free/DD801.htm

An interesting article about the relationship between politics and religion (and ethics) appeared in Monday's Herald, http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/humanity-the-loser-in-rigid-models-of-rule-and-religion/2006/04/16/1145126005798.html

Tim Costello and Jim Wallis argue that "it is possible to have secular politics with spiritual value".

They write, "religion does not have a monopoly on morality. The issue is not whether a political leader or party has a personal faith but whether they have a moral compass."

OK, I'll bite.

>>a society can still reach a majority consensus as to where that line should be, as indeed we have<<

>>Other societies reach different consensus<<

>>Princeton philosopher Peter Singer even thinks that consensus is possible that that line could be...<<

Could you help me here - where is the linkage between consensus and ethics?

The above descriptions refer to a problem that would appear to have deeply ethical considerations.

Do these different decisions perhaps rank "pari passu" in the eyes of the ethicist?

Perc,

the vote is fairer than often unwanted idealism.... and isn't fairness the question here?

Mike said:

"Other societies reach different consensus"

Which of course is rather what I've been saying. Moral relativism.

Pericles and I have had this debate previously, so I won't re-hash it.

Mike, you can apply that statement to 'other groups' within an existing society, and I don't feel we have reached any 'consensus' on anything, we have reached a political settlement, with those on the losing side still adamant that they are right.

While I completely agree that we can have a framework of ethics apart from 'faith' and religion, I still hark back to the issue of the matter of the 'will'.

My point about 1 Corinthians 15 is as follows:

1/ The essential content of the Gospel [Christ died (history)...for our sins,(meaning)]
2/ Pauls own testimony to having encountered the risen Christ.
3/ His very sound reasoning "If Christ is not raised, we of all men are most to be pitied"

If he knew point 2 to be fake or questionable, I doubt he would have subjected himself to such suffering, after all, that would be "Pitiable"

This letter itself is 'evidence' which can be scrutinized in terms of authenticy, date, author etc. Its worth a look. After all, it makes claims which cover our eternal destiny. If we say "I have my mind made up, I suppose I should now look at the facts" we are not thinking clearly.

I don't for a moment think we could or should ever implement laws which are specifically 'Christian' like "All Aussies must attend Church every Sunday" but I believe it is legitimate for renewed Australians, those in Christ, to use their vote as they see fit.

If Ethics is nothing more than the current concensus, (or political flavor) then I feel we are prone to the rudderless ship syndrome.

*Waves at Pericles*...

yes.. your observations are duly noted re the cyclical nature of Mikes 'Ethics' argument.