 |
Search this site |
this page last updated 29 May 2009 All Rights Reserved Text: World Copyright GWBAA Copyright of pictures acknowledged where known Having problems viewing this page? It performs best in Mozilla Firefox. 
|
Here is an example. The long-term view (morality) says that it is wrong to harm people. Ethics takes this viewpoint and applies to contemporary interpretations. Two thousand years ago ancient Romans agreed that it was unethical to harm slaves but slavery itself was ethical because it was not harmful. Today we accept that an individual's psychological wellbeing is as important as their physical welfare - and that makes all forms of slavery unethical. There are many other areas in which ethics have changed over the years as our understanding of human needs and welfare has developed. In many societies discrimination against women is now understood to be unacceptable; homosexuality is also increasingly seen as a facet of human nature which should not be penalised. Morality (do not harm people) remains constant, but ethics (what constitutes harm?) progress. Secondly, while morals apply to everyone, ethics can be applied to specific individuals and situations. Many professions and organisations have ethical codes which apply basic moral standards to their professions and many people develop their own ethical code. These codes enable us to apply morals to the circumstances of our own lives. 6.3c From the abstract to the actual Morality tells us that actions which sustain or promote human physical or mental welfare are good / right / moral. From that simple observation we can deduce our basic moral code: do nothing that harms other people's mental or physical welfare and where possible improve their well-being. In basic English: be nice to people. That code is universal - it apply to everyone equally - otherwise it is worthless. Why? Because any code that allows us to harm others also allows them to harm us. So, how do we get from the abstract - do no harm / be nice to people - to the actual, applying that principle to our daily lives? If we spent every waking hour trying to help other people, our own welfare would soon suffer. So whose welfare comes first: our own or other people's? The answer is simple. Our own welfare is almost always more important. That does not mean that other people are less valuable than we are - they are not - but there are good reasons why each of us should place our own well-being before that of others. Firstly, perspective. No matter how much we empathise with other people, we can never fully understand their point of view. We do not know what it is like to be them. The only person we can fully experience is ourselves. Whatever we do for ourselves, we experience the full impact, good or bad. Whatever we do for others, we can only observe the impact. Feeding ourselves gives us strength and physical and mental well-being; feeding others benefits only our minds. Furthermore, our actions are not guaranteed to bring the good results we intend - if, for example, we give someone food to which they are allergic. Secondly, we cannot help others if do not help ourselves first. It makes no sense to feed other people when we ourselves are starving. There are exceptions to that general principle; the old may consider their lives of less importance than the the young, a mother will feed her child first, and so on. But the basic principle remains that we can help others best when we put our own well-being first. Taking care of ourselves goes far beyond food. We need shelter, clothing, an income, privacy, companionship and so on. Some of us have more demands than others in each of these spheres - and we may overstate our needs (how many of us need three cars or four televisions or two houses?) There comes a point, however, when our needs are met and we can devote attention to others. Ultimately, our goal should be to find the balance between meeting our own needs and creating and / or allowing opportunities for those around us to fulfil their needs. Some of us reach that goal early in life, others very late, and some never at all... 6.3d What's good for us? We have learnt that our basic moral code is be nice to people. We have also learnt that we cannot help others if our own welfare suffers. Our next question is: how can we decide what is good for us? And is what is good for me or you good for everyone? It's time to turn to the big issues - life and death, sex and drugs. What will our moral / ethical code tell us? Chapter Six: Section 4 Sex: What is it good for? 
Custom Search
Email us, pasting the URL into your letter with the comment This account is protected by Spamarrest. You will receive a one-off request to verify your email before it is delivered. |
If God existed, he would... admire the beauty of a universe that he did not create recognize that eternity is meaningless deny both heaven and hell disown all men and women who speak in his name denounce the harm caused by religious "morality" help the human race to thrive without him If God existed, he would be an atheist. What is the difference between science and faith? science is certain of nothing and requires proof of everything faith is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing Which do you trust? "I know there is no God" or "I believe there is no God" ??? Check the answer |
|
Supporting advertisers helps to provide an income for The Atheist God. Clicking on advertiser links may allow these companies to gather and use information about your visit to this and other websites to provide you with advertisements about goods and services presumed to be of interest to you. |