Yay, ethics.
Now, ethics are not a bad thing at all; imagine being sold into slavery. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. Of course, forcing someone into marriage is awful... in Western culture. And would it be ethical to forbid arranged marriages in cultures such as the ones in sub-Saharan Africa or southern Asia? Those arranged marriages didn't happen on someone's whim; rather, we are talking about centuries of tradition these people follow. Say you think it is awful anyways and that tradition isn't an excuse. Then neither are ethics necessary, since most basic rules of them were established centuries ago.
What is the difference between ethics and tradition then? Who can judge whether something is ethical? The most representative system of this would be if a member of a culture judged whether actions of a culture were ethical. Still, then the said sub-Saharan people would (obviously) judge their arranged marriages as an ethical thing. And then we would have the US play the playground policeman again (not that we need more of them, or anyone, doing that).
The elephant in the room? Ethics philosophers have differing stances on what is ethical and what is not, mostly because they lived in ancient times and a large number of them worked for religions. Thus, if we follow master Socrates blindly, then all criminals are just ignorant; he argues that people do good when they know what that good is, and that a person which knows what is right will never do wrong - so, all criminals are just ignorant. Woohoo, Socrates has saved the world, let's turn the prisons into classrooms and libraries. Still, religious ethics claim that premarital sex is unethical, and that opiates of any kind are also unethical. Who decided which ethics are to be followed? It's like one person telling you to cut off your leg with a guillotine, while another person is telling you to just shoot yourself in the knees, while you just want to keep your walking abilities.
Just don't become anarchists, please. Anarchists are one of the few things worse than ethical and moral preachers, right down there with militant believers/atheists and moldy cheeses (not the good kind).
Still here with me? Good. See you next time for more ethics (note the "vol.1" part of the title...)
Au revoir. N'oubliez pas une serviette *french winky face' 😉
Now, ethics are not a bad thing at all; imagine being sold into slavery. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. Of course, forcing someone into marriage is awful... in Western culture. And would it be ethical to forbid arranged marriages in cultures such as the ones in sub-Saharan Africa or southern Asia? Those arranged marriages didn't happen on someone's whim; rather, we are talking about centuries of tradition these people follow. Say you think it is awful anyways and that tradition isn't an excuse. Then neither are ethics necessary, since most basic rules of them were established centuries ago.
Founders of ethics debate premarital sex (cca. 1500 BC, colored)
What is the difference between ethics and tradition then? Who can judge whether something is ethical? The most representative system of this would be if a member of a culture judged whether actions of a culture were ethical. Still, then the said sub-Saharan people would (obviously) judge their arranged marriages as an ethical thing. And then we would have the US play the playground policeman again (not that we need more of them, or anyone, doing that).
The elephant in the room? Ethics philosophers have differing stances on what is ethical and what is not, mostly because they lived in ancient times and a large number of them worked for religions. Thus, if we follow master Socrates blindly, then all criminals are just ignorant; he argues that people do good when they know what that good is, and that a person which knows what is right will never do wrong - so, all criminals are just ignorant. Woohoo, Socrates has saved the world, let's turn the prisons into classrooms and libraries. Still, religious ethics claim that premarital sex is unethical, and that opiates of any kind are also unethical. Who decided which ethics are to be followed? It's like one person telling you to cut off your leg with a guillotine, while another person is telling you to just shoot yourself in the knees, while you just want to keep your walking abilities.
Gehrman chose both
Just don't become anarchists, please. Anarchists are one of the few things worse than ethical and moral preachers, right down there with militant believers/atheists and moldy cheeses (not the good kind).
Still here with me? Good. See you next time for more ethics (note the "vol.1" part of the title...)
Au revoir. N'oubliez pas une serviette *french winky face' 😉
Нема коментара:
Постави коментар