You know.....Lexi.....I think the whole world should take that advice.

BLUE

Foyle
“Should not society attempt to help those children reach their full potential and overcome the learning difficulties and other disadvantages they suffer as the result of their mothers serious health problems.”

Yes but that’s not what you’re arguing. You’re arguing that *the state* should.

You just *assume* both, but do not *prove* either:
1. that as a matter of ethics you are justified in initiating aggression to get what you want
2. that trying to solve the problem by way of coercion produces better results in practice than by way of voluntary relations, all things considered.

Thus you have not even begun to establish your own argument, nor done anything to refute mine. And adding personal disparagement does nothing to improve it either.

Fascists are against personal liberty, I’m in favour of it.

You're too nice to him, Lexi.

>>You are merely expressing your opinion. To which you are entitled. But not your facts. Go back and re-read the context in which the quote was made<<

A quick look at the remainder of the paragraph reveals:

"A modern theist might say that since God is good, he could not possibly approve of torturing children nor disapprove of helping neighbours. In saying this, however, the theist would have tacitly admitted that there is a standard of goodness that is independent of God. Without an independent standard, it would be pointless to say that God is good; this could only mean that God is approved of by God. It seems therefore that, even for those who believe in the existence of God, it is impossible to give a satisfactory account of the origin of morality in terms of a divine creation."

Boaz's cop-out line is instructive:

>>1/ Love God with all our heart (according to his self revelation)
2/ Love/do for your neighbour as you would have them do for you.
That pretty much covers all ethical behavior.<<

No-one objects to 2/. It does indeed encapsulate a great deal of ethical behaviours - not all, of course, but much.

However, in doing so, it renders 1/ completely redundant.

A concept which is also neatly encapsulated in Singer's paragraph. The suggestion being that since God both establishes and approves the ethical standard, all arguments on the validity of those standards will be circular. Ultimately, it is up to us to determine the ethics we should insist upon from our society.

Pericles:

Thank You.

There's an interesting chapter in the book, "The God Delusion," by Richard Dawkins entitled, "The roots of morality: why are we good?"
in which Dawkins says, "Many religious people find it hard to imagine how, without religion, one can be good, or would even want to be good.
But the doubts go further, and drive some religious people to paroxysms of hatred against those who don't share their faith. This is important, because moral considerations lie hidden behind religious attitudes to other topics that have no real link with morality. A great deal of the opposition to the teaching of evolution has no connection with evolution itself, or with anything scientific, but is spurred on by moral outrage. This ranges from the naive, "If you teach children that they evolved from monkeys, then they will act like monkeys" to the more sophisticated underlying motivation for the whole "wedge" strategy of "intelligent design"; as it is mercilessly laid bare by Barbara Forrest abd Paul Gross in "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design." I receive a large number of letters from readers of my books, most of them enthusiastically friendly, some of them helpfully critical, a few nasty or even vicious. And the nastiest of all, I am sorry to report, are almost invariably motivated by religion. Such unchristian abuse is commonly experienced by those who are perceived as enemies of Christianity..."

Obviously, AGIR is a man on a "mission." Hence his thread.

I'll leave Peter and Foyle to fight that one out.. you are doing a good job on it.

Pericles and Lexi... The rest of the paragraph?

I did read it..but disagree with it. Now..you ask for 'facts' hmmmm

Well....when it comes to ethics we are pretty much always speaking about opinions. But this idea of an independant standard of 'good' ?

That's rather my central point. Except that I disagree that there is a standard independant of God which is valid.

The Canaanites used to feed their children into the fire to satisfy Moloch their god. I guess if you asked them 'what is good'..they would say "Obey Moloch..and feed your offspring into a firey death"

So.. it must come back to an independant standard..yes..but not independant of God. If there was a 'standard' outside of God it would 'be' God.

Humanity left to itself will go anywhere... and in many cases to different ethical places.

I think you 2 are more applying our current ideas retrospectively than thinking objectively.

Pericles.. took a while :) but finally you are in.. *smile*

Peter Hhume
<<Yes but that’s not what you’re arguing. You’re arguing that *the state* should>>.
I used the word society. What better agent of society is there than the state? At least the selfish, if they haven’t managed to avoid tax, then pay their fair share or would you have a return to the age of the workhouse and parish distribution of alms?

With your view of liberty, which appears to be more ultra-conservative than liberal, we would still be without sewerage, water would be from the village pump, there would be no state funded basic research and the education system would be driving us back to the dark ages through indoctrination and the influence of authoritarians. It took an act of parliament before degrees could be obtained from Oxford and Cambridge unless the candidate was acceptable to the established church.

Let me this time quote the economist professor Paul Samuelson, “The organiser of industry who thinks he has “made” himself and his business has found a whole social system ready to his hand in skilled workers, machinery, a market, peace and order – a vast apparatus and a pervasive atmosphere, the joint creation of millions of men and scores of generations. Take away the whole social factor and we have not Robinson Crusoe, with his salvage from the wreck and his acquired knowledge, but the naked savage living on roots, berries and vermin.”

The taxation system and redistribution is no more than the common weal claiming a fair share of current wealth and output as a return on contribution of past generations as the state seeks to ensure that future generations have a similar “whole social system” as the present generations do.