‘If God is dead, then everything is permitted.’

Jarod said:
Sure there is, lots of reasons. The rights of man, the efficiency of Capitalism. The allowing each to make their own choices as to how to live. Just a few off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

You mean the rights the founders declared were given to us by the creator? Those rights? The whole basis for our separation from England was the belief that men had rights granted by a higher authority than man. That's how they dared to defy Georgie porgie. It's clear to everyone but a leftist.
 
BidenPresident said:
Charity is a virtue you choose to have. Aristotle never argues against it.
He is talking about a person's relations to other people.
Click to expand...
Exactly, service to others is not a focus in Nicomachean Ethics. It just doesn't really come up.


I think you get different perspectives by reading different ethical traditions.

Aristotle's eleven key virtues are brilliant.

But he doesn't really have anything similar to the parable of the Good Samaritan, or the Sermon on the Mount.

And neither Jesus nor Aristotle have anything quite like the eightfold path of The Buddha.
 
Cypress said:
Exactly, service to others is not a focus in Nicomachean Ethics. It just doesn't really come up.


I think you get different perspectives by reading different ethical traditions.

Aristotle's eleven key virtues are brilliant.

But he doesn't have anything similar to the parable of the Good Samaritan, or the Sermon on the Mount.

And neither Jesus nor Aristotle have anything quite like the eightfold path of The Buddha.
Click to expand...

Good. I prefer Aristotle. Far more grounded in human life.
And he never talks about "maximizing happiness."
 
Cypress said:
Exactly, service to others is not a focus in Nicomachean Ethics. It just doesn't really come up.


I think you get different perspectives by reading different ethical traditions.

Aristotle's eleven key virtues are brilliant.

But he doesn't really have anything similar to the parable of the Good Samaritan, or the Sermon on the Mount.

And neither Jesus nor Aristotle have anything quite like the eightfold path of The Buddha.
Click to expand...

Aristotle talks about generosity and megalopsychia (the greatness of soul).
 
Nothing is permitted and nothing is proscribed.

We have that illusion, but in reality,
life just happens to us
until it doesn't anymore.

Learn to find that comforting.
It removes the pressure.
 
Cypress said:
Exactly, service to others is not a focus in Nicomachean Ethics. It just doesn't really come up.


I think you get different perspectives by reading different ethical traditions.

Aristotle's eleven key virtues are brilliant.

But he doesn't really have anything similar to the parable of the Good Samaritan, or the Sermon on the Mount.

And neither Jesus nor Aristotle have anything quite like the eightfold path of The Buddha.
Click to expand...

"Greatness of Soul seems therefore to be as it were a crowning ornament of the virtues: it enhances their greatness, and it cannot exist without them. Hence it is hard to be truly great souled, for greatness of soul is impossible without moral nobility."

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hoppe...:1999.01.0054:bekker page=1124a:bekker line=1
 
Yakuda said:
You mean the rights the founders declared were given to us by the creator? Those rights? The whole basis for our separation from England was the belief that men had rights granted by a higher authority than man. That's how they dared to defy Georgie porgie. It's clear to everyone but a leftist.
Click to expand...

Interesting view considering the Founders were leftist, or did you think revolting against the traditional order was a conservative trait, probably thinks the Radical Republicans were called such cause they leaned right
 
archives said:
Interesting view considering the Founders were leftist, or did you think revolting against the traditional order was a conservative trait, probably thinks the Radical Republicans were called such cause they leaned right
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant. Read the DOI and it's quite straight forward. They rejected the kings authority by making the assertion their rights don't come from him. It's not complicated.
 
BidenPresident said:
"Greatness of Soul seems therefore to be as it were a crowning ornament of the virtues: it enhances their greatness, and it cannot exist without them. Hence it is hard to be truly great souled, for greatness of soul is impossible without moral nobility."

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hoppe...:1999.01.0054:bekker page=1124a:bekker line=1
Click to expand...

Moral nobility is just a nebulous buzzword. It doesn't really mean anything because it isn't defined and contextualized.

I have heard the hypothesis that human ethics and values have always basically been the same from time immemorial, across all cultures and traditions.

I have now read enough of the western and Asian canon to believe this claim is completely false.


The Homeric-age Greek values were honor, reputation, courage, glory. What the Greeks would have called tîmê and kleos.

Classical and Hellenistic-age Greek values, as seen in Aristotle and Plato were wisdom, justice, temperance, courage. There is nothing in The Republic or Nicomachean Ethics about service to the poor, standing up for the oppressed. The whole point of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is Eudemonia, to create a flourishing life for oneself. That obviously doesn't mean you can engage in murder, rape, and theft. The Aristotelian life is supposed to be one of noble virtue, but the focus is not to be in service to others.

The Chinese Confucian ethical system tends to be about benevolence, righteousness, proprietary, wisdom.

The cardinal Christian virtues are faith, charity, universal love, humility.



Ethics and cultural values have never been static. The way we percieve ethics evolves in time and space.
 
Cypress said:
Moral nobility is just a nebulous buzzword. It doesn't really mean anything because it isn't defined and contextualized.

I have heard the hypothesis that human ethics and values have always basically been the same from time immemorial, across all cultures and traditions.

I have now read enough of the western and Asian canon to believe this claim is completely false.


The Homeric-age Greek values were honor, reputation, courage, glory. What the Greeks would have called tîmê and kleos.

Classical and Hellenistic-age Greek values, as seen in Aristotle and Plato were wisdom, justice, temperance, courage. There is nothing in The Republic or Nicomachean Ethics about service to the poor, standing up for the oppressed. The whole point of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is Eudemonia, to create a flourishing life for oneself. That obviously doesn't mean you can engage in murder, rape, and theft. The Aristotelian life is supposed to be one of noble virtue, but the focus is not to be in service to others.

The Chinese Confucian ethical system tends to be about benevolence, righteousness, proprietary, wisdom.

The cardinal Christian virtues are faith, charity, universal love, humility.



Ethics and cultural values have never been static. The way we percieve ethics evolves in time and space.
Click to expand...

I gave the context from the source of the text. Quit playing games.
 
BidenPresident said:
The modern form of the philosophical (or meta-ethical) problem of moral realism may be thought to confront a greater test than its predecessors. Its peculiar challenge was famously expressed in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov: ‘If God is dead, then everything is permitted.’

Among the more influential philosophical doctrines of the twentieth century was logical positivism which claimed that moral statements are essentially meaningless since they are factually uncheckable. Ethical judgements were defined by the leading English proponent of logical positivism, Freddie Ayer (1910-1989), as emotional ejaculations entirely devoid of reason.

https://drb.ie/articles/climbing-mount-improbable/
Click to expand...

It works like with royalty... The king is dead, long live the king!
 
BidenPresident said:
For those who need a king.
Click to expand...

tenor.gif
 
BidenPresident said:
The modern form of the philosophical (or meta-ethical) problem of moral realism may be thought to confront a greater test than its predecessors. Its peculiar challenge was famously expressed in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov: ‘If God is dead, then everything is permitted.’

Among the more influential philosophical doctrines of the twentieth century was logical positivism which claimed that moral statements are essentially meaningless since they are factually uncheckable. Ethical judgements were defined by the leading English proponent of logical positivism, Freddie Ayer (1910-1989), as emotional ejaculations entirely devoid of reason.

https://drb.ie/articles/climbing-mount-improbable/
Click to expand...

Not true. You have rights by virtue of existing...God doesn't matter.
 
BidenPresident said:
I gave the context from the source of the text. Quit playing games.
Click to expand...

Anyone who carefully read and studied the context of Nicomachean Ethics knows it is a very different piece of work than the New Testament.

Neither Plato or Aristotle concerned themselves directly with the poor or oppressed in any significant way.

Neither of them emphasized service to the poor or universal love in their projects.

There is nothing like the parable of the good Samaritan in the Republic or Nicomachean Ethics.

Plato and Aristotle have to be contextualized, because they both believed in, and came from, artistocracy. Their projects of Eudeameia and virtue ethics were really intended for the nobility, not the unwashed masses. Aristotle openly thought some people were born to be slaves. Aristotle was a complete misogynist. Plato was better, because he thought women with the talents could become philosophers too.

The Republic and the Nicomachean Ethics are brilliant, and we can take them out of their historical context for our own purposes

The program of Jesus was different than that of Plato or Aristotle. Jesus didn't contextualize his message for the nobility, or just for men. His ministry accepted peasants, prostitutes, women. His was message of spiritual equality, and service to the poor, the sick, the oppressed.

That is not the takeaway I got out of The Republic, or The Nicomachean Ethics.


I think Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Buddha, Confucious, Laozi are all brilliant. But anyone who has carefully read and studied them is not coming away with the sense that human values and ethical priorities are basically exactly the same across different traditions and across time immemorial. Though I think they are starting to converge on some essential truths.
 
Last edited:
Yakuda said:
Besides the fact that God isn't dead, without God there is no valid reason to prohibit anything.
Click to expand...

That's baloney. Buddhists don't have a creator God per se, but have a highly developed system of ethics that are categorical moral imperatives in the context of following the eightfold path of enlightenment.
 
Yakuda said:
Besides the fact that God isn't dead, without God there is no valid reason to prohibit anything.
Click to expand...

While those crooks on Capital Hill government budget shutdown funding of stopping Russia's Orthodox Church rootin' tootin' Putin genocide pogrom extermination of Ukraine's WW II Nazis should be enough to expose those crooks on Capital Hill not so master race of Klues Klucks duh Klans Christian Nation SCOTUS under color of law not so master plan George Washington University Hospital Washington, D.C. second & third generation born USA citizens are Islam "serve the Pope or die" patriot act suicidal super ego thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists sociopsychopathilogical homicidal Islam "death to the infidels" human farming genocide pogrom as Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement Mengele "Angel of Death" baptize thine eyes by urinations traditions.....as "one nation under God with equal justice under law"....
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
That's baloney. Buddhists don't have a creator God per se, but have a highly developed system of ethics that are categorical moral imperatives in the context of following the eightfold path of enlightenment.
Click to expand...

Where does Buddhism say those moral imperative come from? Beyond that the founders did recognize the existence of a creator and did as a matter of fact based their right to oppose the king on the assertion that rights were bestowed by higher authority than thr king. Buddhism is irrelevant
 
Cypress said:
Anyone who carefully read and studied the context of Nicomachean Ethics knows it is a very different piece of work than the New Testament.

Neither Plato or Aristotle concerned themselves directly with the poor or oppressed in any significant way.

Neither of them emphasized service to the poor or universal love in their projects.

There is nothing like the parable of the good Samaritan in the Republic or Nicomachean Ethics.

Plato and Aristotle have to be contextualized, because they both believed in, and came from, artistocracy. Their projects of Eudeameia and virtue ethics were really intended for the nobility, not the unwashed masses. Aristotle openly thought some people were born to be slaves. Aristotle was a complete misogynist. Plato was better, because he thought women with the talents could become philosophers too.

The Republic and the Nicomachean Ethics are brilliant, and we can take them out of their historical context for our own purposes

The program of Jesus was different than that of Plato or Aristotle. Jesus didn't contextualize his message for the nobility, or just for men. His ministry accepted peasants, prostitutes, women. His was message of spiritual equality, and service to the poor, the sick, the oppressed.

That is not the takeaway I got out of The Republic, or The Nicomachean Ethics.


I think Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Buddha, Confucious, Laozi are all brilliant. But anyone who has carefully read and studied them is not coming away with the sense that human values and ethical priorities are basically exactly the same across different traditions and across time immemorial. Though I think they are starting to converge on some essential truths.
Click to expand...

Look, I don't care if you're religious. We always get to that. Nothing further to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top