What's the place of religion in ethical debate?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » What's the place of religion in ethical debate?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

ElAleph
 
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 04:44 pm
I read that nearly all government ethics panels have to include representatives from most of the major religion's of that country.

This fact struck me as odd, as why should the testimony and opinion of religious leaders be prioritized when ultimately their opinion is only relevant to their particular religion? As most religious ethical systems stem from their teachings on God(s), they are useless when discussing important ethical questions as their views can never be practically applied by everyone, (which is surely the point of any ethical system in the first place?), let alone helpful in providing a basis from which to decide the actions of a nation with regards to ethics.

What do you think? What is the value of including religious believers in ethical debate? Can their contributions be meaningful whether or not they can be universally applied?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 04:55 pm
@ElAleph,
ElAleph;75752 wrote:

This fact struck me as odd, as why should the testimony and opinion of religious leaders be prioritized when ultimately their opinion is only relevant to their particular religion?


I'm not sure why a religious leader's ethical perspective would only apply to their particular religion. These people typically spend a great deal of time contemplating ethics, and so they would, one should expect, familiar with ethical dilemmas and questions.

ElAleph;75752 wrote:
As most religious ethical systems stem from their teachings on God(s), they are useless when discussing important ethical questions as their views can never be practically applied by everyone, (which is surely the point of any ethical system in the first place?), let alone helpful in providing a basis from which to decide the actions of a nation with regards to ethics.


Would you consider JS Mill, then, to be someone who's opinion on ethics should be ignored regarding public policy because he claimed that God was a Utilitarian?

And further examples abound. If we were to throw out all ethical considerations so widely studied in philosophy should they be tinged with religion, there would be little of the subject left to consider. Aristotle would be out, Mill would be out, Kant would be out, and so forth.

ElAleph;75752 wrote:
What do you think? What is the value of including religious believers in ethical debate? Can their contributions be meaningful whether or not they can be universally applied?


I think their contributions can not only be meaningful, but should be heard. Two reasons seem impressively convincing:

1. Familiarity with questions of ethics
2. Because any given population is comprised primarily of religious people, any given population will consider the ethical considerations of religious leaders relevant in their own lives, and therefore, useful when examining public ethical decisions.

Case in point: when slavery was debated in England and the United States, both pro-slavery advocates and abolitionists often referred to the opinions of their religious leaders.

Also consider the near universality of a great deal of religious ethics. Most people agree: murder is wrong. But we do not ignore this notion because it was first derived from religious sources.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 12:21 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
ElAleph;75752 wrote:
I read that nearly all government ethics panels have to include representatives from most of the major religion's of that country...

What do you think? What is the value of including religious believers in ethical debate? Can their contributions be meaningful whether or not they can be universally applied?

Hello ElAleph!
The reason why this is being done is obvious to me. What is government ethics? It is a set of rules which we should obey implicitly, they are laws (dura lex, sed lex -- altough law is bad, it is still law). Government does not want to face real ethical problems, it takes as given some rules like: "thou shalt not kill" or "not steal" etc., whereas true philosopher need challenge everything. Religion does exactly the same: it teaches: "We have truth. Thou shalt obey us, otherwise thou wilt be cast in hell, or abide in the samsara and reborn as worm etc." Religion gives us that very code of rules (no wonder: its very appearance was aimed at protection of authority of exploiters: ruling classes gave money to priests and they were fooling people hallowing the present world order, remeber Hindoo doctrine on reincarnation). Therefore religion is almost the same as government and it uses the same way to express itself through rules.
By the way, government does not invite leaders of extremist sects. Only those who agree with general commandments are welcome.
Answering thy questions I shall say that the ethics they are discusing is not true ethics, unconditioned ethics which fits to every man regardless his religious background. Priesthood has a certain authourity that government wants to use.
Their "contribution" may indeed prevent their adherents from commiting certain deeds ('crimes'). Yet this is violence much as everithing that comes from authority of whatever kind and its solution is only superficial: it can uphold "order" in society, but it has no value since there is disorder within people's souls.

Didymos Thomas;75757 wrote:

1. Familiarity with questions of ethics
These people typically spend a great deal of time contemplating ethics, and so they would, one should expect, familiar with ethical dilemmas and questions.

Let's say "contemplating THEIR ethics". The ethics of God who gave permission to kill to one "chosen folk" surely is not the ethics of another "chosen folk"...

Didymos Thomas;75757 wrote:

2. Because any given population is comprised primarily of religious people, any given population will consider the ethical considerations of religious leaders relevant in their own lives, and therefore, useful when examining public ethical decisions.

Case in point: when slavery was debated in England and the United States, both pro-slavery advocates and abolitionists often referred to the opinions of their religious leaders.

Also consider the near universality of a great deal of religious ethics. Most people agree: murder is wrong. But we do not ignore this notion because it was first derived from religious sources.

Well, as I have just said this is not true ethics if ethics has something to do with happiness of Man. Those ethical studies may harmonise with the words of one guru, yet be absolutely meaningless for our happiness, what is their value then?
Those who took part in discussion on abolition of slavery surely had some notion why or why not it is preferrable and their references to the "holy bible" were just an attempt to do violence against others without rejecting their REAL arguments.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 01:51 pm
@ElAleph,
The question is "Can their [religious believers] contributions be meaningful whether or not they can be universally applied?"

Now it seems that even professional philosophers cannot provide a system of ethics that can be universally applied, but one would hope that they would be included in government ethics panels. We could also say the same for representatives of various religious sects, for the reasons Didymos Thomas has mentioned.

Certainly if a government were to be concerned with ethics for whatever reason, would it not be useful to have as many viewpoints as possible presented, especially if these viewpoints represented those of many of the people to whom the government was responsible, but in a hopefully more thoughtful and considered manner?
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 02:11 pm
@jgweed,
Hi,

1) Well, from a practical side, if you don't include religious leaders, you are going to piss off a lot of your constituencies, which is a no-no for a politician. This applies to all countries, except those who don't mind pissing off religious people, e.g. China.

2) From a philosophical perspective, if you look at ethics as nothing more than a set of ever changing rules, laws, principles, that have been codified by some group of people, then it makes sense to include religious people, since they make up a large percentage of most group populations - e.g. a country.

Now it is true, that atheists may object if they have to accept some religious ethic (e.g relating to caste, marriage, etc.) , but heck they are not a majority of most voters, and where they may be a majority (e.g. China), they can't vote anyway.

Rich
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 08:31 pm
@richrf,
Eudaimon;77442 wrote:

Let's say "contemplating THEIR ethics". The ethics of God who gave permission to kill to one "chosen folk" surely is not the ethics of another "chosen folk"...


I'm not sure this amounts to much of an objection - the exact same thing could be said of a purely secular, academic consideration of ethics - the philosopher spends time contemplating "his ethics".

Eudaimon;77442 wrote:
Well, as I have just said this is not true ethics if ethics has something to do with happiness of Man. Those ethical studies may harmonise with the words of one guru, yet be absolutely meaningless for our happiness, what is their value then?


It may be the case that any given ethical system (secular or religious) may not be meaningful when we consider human happiness, but simply because this might be the case, it does not follow that it is the case.

I think if we examine the ethics of most thinkers, religious and secular, their primary concern is the happiness of man.

Eudaimon;77442 wrote:
Those who took part in discussion on abolition of slavery surely had some notion why or why not it is preferrable and their references to the "holy bible" were just an attempt to do violence against others without rejecting their REAL arguments.


In some cases, this is true. This is especially true of those citing the Bible in order to further slavery. However, if we look at abolitionist literature, the Bible was often cited as giving credence to those seeking to reduce violence and the violent practice of slavery.

Both sides cited the Bible to address the real arguments of the other side as both sides used Biblical references to build arguments. The Bible was not a means to escape the other side's arguments.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 03:19 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Is the an ethics constitution that has a separation of church and state clause?
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 03:31 am
@Didymos Thomas,
jgweed;77458 wrote:
Now it seems that even professional philosophers cannot provide a system of ethics that can be universally applied

That's an idle question whether or not this can be made. We should consider every ethics and not generalise. Why is it (im-)possible to have such an ethics?

jgweed;77458 wrote:
Certainly if a government were to be concerned with ethics for whatever reason, would it not be useful to have as many viewpoints as possible presented, especially if these viewpoints represented those of many of the people to whom the government was responsible, but in a hopefully more thoughtful and considered manner?

Is government ready to invite fascists to those discussions? Or racists? Or sexists? Even this forum bans them. Yet these leaders represent some amount of population... Why don't they do that? Because they already have an idea of how the order must be. There may be some deviations like permission/prohibition of abortions, death penalties etc. but the core is the same. Why shouldn't we kill Jews? or enslave Negroes? Or kill president? Are you ready to face these questions? Or would you rather prefer to chew old patterns?
DT said me one day that the purpose of this forum is not "to save the world". Neither is it the purpose of government. It's purpose is to establish the ideas of ruling classes (or majority which absolutely doesn't matter) regardless whether they are true or not. Those who want to know Truth must deal with however odious ideas and reject them ONLY if they are inconsistent.
Now I think it is obvious why they invite those religious leaders. It's being made so as to make their adherents obey government or better say established order. It's just utilitarianism, "utility of religious superstitions".
Didymos Thomas;77526 wrote:
I'm not sure this amounts to much of an objection - the exact same thing could be said of a purely secular, academic consideration of ethics - the philosopher spends time contemplating "his ethics".

This may take place if someone clings to the system he built. Surely I am speaking of those who don't. On the other hand when someone calls himself Christian, or Buddhist, or Hindoo, or Muslim this means that he is attached to the words of his gooroos.

Didymos Thomas;77526 wrote:
I think if we examine the ethics of most thinkers, religious and secular, their primary concern is the happiness of man.
In some cases, this is true. This is especially true of those citing the Bible in order to further slavery. However, if we look at abolitionist literature, the Bible was often cited as giving credence to those seeking to reduce violence and the violent practice of slavery.
Both sides cited the Bible to address the real arguments of the other side as both sides used Biblical references to build arguments. The Bible was not a means to escape the other side's arguments.

When I do something because these are words of Christ or the Buddha I do that not because I understand that this leads to happiness, that this is Truth but because my guru, whom I am to obey, said that.
Otherwise why should I care what was the words of Christ? If they are true they are true regardless of what is one who said them and they are true for an atheist or Muslim also, if not not why should I follow them? Thus what's the point to use the bible or koran or dharmapada in discussion as if they are reservoir of truth?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 04:26 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;77612 wrote:

This may take place if someone clings to the system he built. Surely I am speaking of those who don't. On the other hand when someone calls himself Christian, or Buddhist, or Hindoo, or Muslim this means that he is attached to the words of his gooroos.


I agree. But these people, Christian and so forth, also spend a great deal of time thinking about what those words mean. In each of these religions, there exists disagreement about what the teachers would have us take to be the proper ethical system.

In Christianity, for example, there are a great many ethical disagreements. Mill says God is a Utilitarian, while Kant, a deeply religious philosopher, proposes a deontological system. Meanwhile, Scholastics typically argued for an Aristotelian virtue ethic system.

So, while it is true that religious people will meditate on the ethical teachings of their particular religion, it also seems to be the case that these religious people often come to the very same conclusions as philosophers working from a completely secular perspective, and that the variety of ethical doctrines espoused by religious people is essentially the same as those espoused on secular terms.

In other words, while religious people may draw their insight from a particular tradition of teaching, religious people can offer up more than simple appeal to tradition when discussing ethics. Religious people have just as much to add to a conversation on ethics as do people who consider ethics without relation to traditional wisdom.

Eudaimon;77612 wrote:
When I do something because these are words of Christ or the Buddha I do that not because I understand that this leads to happiness, that this is Truth but because my guru, whom I am to obey, said that.


I disagree that this is what Buddhism teaches. The Buddha explicitly advises against doing or believing anything simply because he said it. Hence the phrase, "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." I love that sense of humor.

But even in Christianity, there exists volumes of ethical thought which explain why something is right or wrong with more than just appeals to Jesus or some prophet. And that's my point: religious people are capable of, and often do think more about ethics than just "X person said do A,B,C". Most religious people, I think, have free thought and can think on their own.

Eudaimon;77612 wrote:
Otherwise why should I care what was the words of Christ? If they are true they are true regardless of what is one who said them and they are true for an atheist or Muslim also, if not not why should I follow them? Thus what's the point to use the bible or koran or dharmapada in discussion as if they are reservoir of truth?


Because those texts might very well contain truth, and if they do contain truth, there is no sense in ignoring the source of that truth.

I completely agree that something is true or false regardless who said it. It doesn't matter if Jesus said something, the only thing that matters is whether or not what was said is useful for our pursuit of happiness. That is a very astute point, and I'm glad you brought it up. But at the same time, if it is useful to use, we should not ignore it, we should embrace the wisdom.

If there is someone who has ethical wisdom, their voice is relevant to a conversation on ethics regardless of the person's background. If a priest has something wise to say regarding ethics, he should be heard. If an atheist scientists has something wise to say on ethics, he should be heard. By embracing wisdom from any source, we are better off for having that many more wise perspectives to consider.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 04:18 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;77615 wrote:
I agree. But these people, Christian and so forth, also spend a great deal of time thinking about what those words mean. In each of these religions, there exists disagreement about what the teachers would have us take to be the proper ethical system.

In Christianity, for example, there are a great many ethical disagreements. Mill says God is a Utilitarian, while Kant, a deeply religious philosopher, proposes a deontological system. Meanwhile, Scholastics typically argued for an Aristotelian virtue ethic system.

So, while it is true that religious people will meditate on the ethical teachings of their particular religion, it also seems to be the case that these religious people often come to the very same conclusions as philosophers working from a completely secular perspective, and that the variety of ethical doctrines espoused by religious people is essentially the same as those espoused on secular terms.

In other words, while religious people may draw their insight from a particular tradition of teaching, religious people can offer up more than simple appeal to tradition when discussing ethics. Religious people have just as much to add to a conversation on ethics as do people who consider ethics without relation to traditional wisdom.
If there is someone who has ethical wisdom, their voice is relevant to a conversation on ethics regardless of the person's background. If a priest has something wise to say regarding ethics, he should be heard. If an atheist scientists has something wise to say on ethics, he should be heard. By embracing wisdom from any source, we are better off for having that many more wise perspectives to consider.

Agree. But in this case we should invite to our conversations Hitler or Osama bin Laden, shouldn't we? Otherwise this discusion will have little variations within one particular system. All those Christians e.g. consider killing "without a cause" wrong. What if it is not wrong? Shouldn't we consider every view?
Government does not do that. Why? Because it is concerned not with truth but with keeping established order and those teachers are welcome only untill they speak what correlate with general course of government.

Didymos Thomas;77615 wrote:
I disagree that this is what Buddhism teaches. The Buddha explicitly advises against doing or believing anything simply because he said it. Hence the phrase, "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." I love that sense of humor.

To start with, these are not the words of the Buddha...
In other discussion on Buddhism I have just stated my view: if the Buddha had not been concerned with establishing spiritual authority, he would have never called himself "Buddha", wouldn't he? Even if he had some "transcendental experiences" what difference does it make for us? For us this name "Buddha" is vague and may lead to worshipping only, which probably was the very purpose of its adopting.

Didymos Thomas;77615 wrote:
But even in Christianity, there exists volumes of ethical thought which explain why something is right or wrong with more than just appeals to Jesus or some prophet. And that's my point: religious people are capable of, and often do think more about ethics than just "X person said do A,B,C". Most religious people, I think, have free thought and can think on their own.

O.K. But in this case I think these people cease to be religious, I think.


Didymos Thomas;77615 wrote:
Because those texts might very well contain truth, and if they do contain truth, there is no sense in ignoring the source of that truth.

I completely agree that something is true or false regardless who said it. It doesn't matter if Jesus said something, the only thing that matters is whether or not what was said is useful for our pursuit of happiness. That is a very astute point, and I'm glad you brought it up. But at the same time, if it is useful to use, we should not ignore it, we should embrace the wisdom.

I did not say that we must ignore them just because people worship them. (That would be just another kind of belief.) I think we should be indifferent to them, that is take from them only what is true.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 04:54 am
@ElAleph,
Ok ElAleph - let's turn the question around. Let's say that such panels, in future, deliberately exclude all representatives of religious bodies from such boards. So, anyone can be on them, EXCEPT for persons who have some professed allegiance to religious bodies.

Who then would be on these boards? From what background and in what discipline would you start making selections? They would be what kind of profession, with what kind of qualification?

Also you might give some thought to the question that if religious representatives have been excluded, how are those who are invited qualified by virtue of their particular background and discipline to comment on ethical matters in particular.

This is a challenge, ElAleph. If you can produce a serious and substantial answer to this question then I will accede defeat. But I bet you won't be able to.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 05:10 am
@jeeprs,
I think the problem for certain amount of the population is the fact that faith driven dogma has more influence in society than it should have.
When you consider less than 5% of the population are active members of the church,who are they representing?
I see television chat shows on ethics always has the church represented on the panel,why? It does not always have a humanist there.A hundred years ago it represented the common view but not now.The church is no longer a driving force or relevant influence in most peoples lives.
 
ValueRanger
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 12:35 pm
@xris,
xris;77882 wrote:
I think the problem for certain amount of the population is the fact that faith driven dogma has more influence in society than it should have.
When you consider less than 5% of the population are active members of the church,who are they representing?
I see television chat shows on ethics always has the church represented on the panel,why? It does not always have a humanist there.A hundred years ago it represented the common view but not now.The church is no longer a driving force or relevant influence in most peoples lives.

The drive for unique originality further dilutes cause into a myriad of effects. Sure, there sustains a Golden Ratio of root cause in all our actions, but when we get too diluted, we face the acceleration of entropy to further drive us to root cause.

The sole reason why we've made it this far, is The Golden Rule. This is why philosophers inevitably turn to math, because it trumps the extended aesthetic (less hierarchical needs) set.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 12:24 am
@ValueRanger,
Eudaimon;77879 wrote:
Agree. But in this case we should invite to our conversations Hitler or Osama bin Laden, shouldn't we? Otherwise this discusion will have little variations within one particular system.


Hitler, no, because he was not a man interested in ethics in the least. Bin Laden, no, because his considerations are not ethics, but a fundamentalist reading of the Koran - instead of meditating on the Koran's message, he does exactly the opposite; he mindlessly accepts passages at face value, and only the passages he wants to accept.

Eudaimon;77879 wrote:
All those Christians e.g. consider killing "without a cause" wrong. What if it is not wrong? Shouldn't we consider every view?


No, we should not consider every view. There are some people who argue that ethics should be overthrown entirely - they argue that people should be unethical. Inviting arbitrary and anti-ethical views to the table for sake of diversity is not going to help us have a valuable conversation about ethics.

Eudaimon;77879 wrote:
To start with, these are not the words of the Buddha...


The Buddha explicitly states not to believe anything any one says on authority - according to Buddhist scripture. The "If you see the Buddha, kill the Buddha" is not the words of the Buddha.

Eudaimon;77879 wrote:
In other discussion on Buddhism I have just stated my view: if the Buddha had not been concerned with establishing spiritual authority, he would have never called himself "Buddha", wouldn't he? Even if he had some "transcendental experiences" what difference does it make for us? For us this name "Buddha" is vague and may lead to worshipping only, which probably was the very purpose of its adopting.


By accepting that title, he made public his status as an enlightened being; as an enlightened being, he made it quite clear that one should not accept his words on authority - again, he explicitly states this:

Quote Details: The Buddha: Do not believe in... - The Quotations Page

The Buddha was concerned with establishing a spiritual order that could stand the test of time and help as many people as possible achieve enlightenment. This is why he set up a monastic order.

The Buddha's enlightenment means that his teachings are wise. However, each person should consider those teachings for himself before accepting them.

"Buddha" is only vague if we have not looked into it's meaning. A Buddha is someone who is enlightened. The historic Gautama Buddha was a Buddha who taught in India sometime around 400 BCE and founded Buddhism.

Eudaimon;77879 wrote:
O.K. But in this case I think these people cease to be religious, I think.


People cease to be religious when they think for themselves? I see no reason to make such an assertion. History is filled with a great many renown individuals who thought for themselves. The Catholic Church has made Saints out of people who thought for themselves, people who came up with new ideas about religion.

Eudaimon;77879 wrote:
I did not say that we must ignore them just because people worship them. (That would be just another kind of belief.) I think we should be indifferent to them, that is take from them only what is true.


That's the idea - study them, and take from those texts whatever makes sense. What does not make sense, drop.

"Indifferent" has a number of meanings in English, but if we take it to mean "impartial and unbiased", then I agree entirely.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 01:43 am
@xris,
xris;77882 wrote:
I think the problem for certain amount of the population is the fact that faith driven dogma has more influence in society than it should have.
When you consider less than 5% of the population are active members of the church,who are they representing?
I see television chat shows on ethics always has the church represented on the panel,why? It does not always have a humanist there.A hundred years ago it represented the common view but not now.The church is no longer a driving force or relevant influence in most peoples lives.


This is opposed secular humanist dogma? Dogma doesn't require one to be active in a religion or anything, it is simply an ideological rule set to action. All ideology is dogmatic once it becomes part of a culture's/person's/group's identity and whether or not someone even believes in a deity or has faith in the doctrines of a religion, s/he is expressing dogmatic faith in something. If people didn't act out of dogmatic principle they would be paralyzed by all the choices they would have to make in the first minute of their day. We make thousands of choices without ever thinking about them based on the dogma ingrained in our identities. It just so happens that even though 5% (i would like to see the study that says this) are active in their religious group, the dogma from the ages of different religions is in our system. Having a figure head representative from one of them is the same as having Barbara Boxer or Al Franken as a Talking head representing the 5% of practicing secular humanists.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 03:33 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;78078 wrote:
This is opposed secular humanist dogma? Dogma doesn't require one to be active in a religion or anything, it is simply an ideological rule set to action. All ideology is dogmatic once it becomes part of a culture's/person's/group's identity and whether or not someone even believes in a deity or has faith in the doctrines of a religion, s/he is expressing dogmatic faith in something. If people didn't act out of dogmatic principle they would be paralyzed by all the choices they would have to make in the first minute of their day. We make thousands of choices without ever thinking about them based on the dogma ingrained in our identities. It just so happens that even though 5% (i would like to see the study that says this) are active in their religious group, the dogma from the ages of different religions is in our system. Having a figure head representative from one of them is the same as having Barbara Boxer or Al Franken as a Talking head representing the 5% of practicing secular humanists.
Religious dogma has the individual not being able to rationalise on an ethical problem.The priest or CE vicar can not vocalize his own opinions or change the accepted dogma of his church.When attending such gatherings all he is there for is to reinforce his churches position.Any change in dogma requires the vatican or the CE synod permission.Ethics or morals in the public domain can be debated and altered by common consent and does not require like the faithful we see foundering in conflict over interpretation of scripture.Just look at the anglican division brought about by the subject of homosexuality.Look at the deep unrest in the Rc church over contraception.Flexibility in debate is the only way ethics can be duscussed,dogma of any description kills debate.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 03:53 am
@xris,
And that 5% figure is not correct. Here is an interesting survey of polls regarding church attendance. The main point of the article is to expose the over-estimating of church attendance; however, even when the numbers are revisited in order to account for the misrepresentation of those being polled, at least 24% of Americans regularly attend, and as many as 30% regularly attend services:

How many North Americans go regularly to church?

24% of the population is surely significant. Either way, church attendance is ultimately irrelevant: what does matter is the opinion of the people. If people respect or admire a religious leader's moral perspective, then that perspective is valuable and worth admitting into public policy discussions regarding morality.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 04:42 am
@Didymos Thomas,
As the original question was related to the uk,the church attendance figures where related to the uk.I must appologize, i exagerated my memory of the attendance figures.They are i believe 6.5% not 5%..As there are twice as many jedi knights now as buddhists should we include them in attendance figures, is my next question..:sarcastic: BBC NEWS | UK | Minorities prop up church-going
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 07:08 am
@Eudaimon,
ElAleph;75752 wrote:
I read that nearly all government ethics panels have to include representatives from most of the major religion's of that country.


Nothing in the original posts specifies a country.

Besides, like I said, attendance is irrelevant - what matters is the respect a population has for religious leaders. Even in the UK, a figure such as the Dalai Lama is widely respected - and he is widely respected internationally, having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. People who win the Nobel Peace Prize probably have something to contribute to a conversation on ethics.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 08:02 am
@Didymos Thomas,
As the original thread starter was from England its dam well likely he was speaking about the british government,not everything in life is so centred around America.As the Jedi helped save the universe and has more followers than buddhism, its only right their leaders or a jedi knight be consulted by the government on ethical matters.I cant think of anyone who has more force than Yoda or Star Walker.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » What's the place of religion in ethical debate?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 06:17:40