[kim_johnson]

i'd ask that those who want to post religious / spiritual thoughts on this topic start their own thread on the spirituality forum rather than posting here.

thanking you in advance.

Moore had this argument (the 'open question argument') to show that attempts to reduce or analyze the 'good' (in the moral sense) would always be doomed to fail. The thought is basically that whatever you attempt to identify the good with (e.g., the intentions of an intelligent designer, whatever increases evolutionary fitness etc etc) then it still seems to be an open question of whether that really is good. As such, reductive analyses fail.

Another thought (due to Hume, I think) is that you 'can't get an ought from an is'. The thought there is that even if we had a completed science (which we don't) then it still wouldn't tell us what we morally ought to do. While it is often thought that 'ought implies can' such that facts about biological and / or psychological possibility will constrain what people ought to do, what people ought to do is radically underdetermined by the way the world is. For example, just because science tells us that we have always done x doesn't make x good, just because science tells us that people believe x is good doesn't make x good. you can't get an ought from an is...

Some spiritual / religious beliefs are beyond science as well. For example, some have the view that God is whatever was responsible for the first event in the natural world. Since science only deals with events in the natural world it seems that facts about God would be facts that lie beyond science. Mathematics and logic are also beyond science in the sense that they aren't about the natural world.

You can study ethics in social psychology / sociology with respect to what it is that people believe and / or practice. You could also study what people believe / practice with respect to God, maths, or logic in this fashion. This isn't to make God, number, moral facts, or logical facts the subject of scientific inquiry, however, rather it is to take our *beliefs* about them to be the subject of scientific inquiry. (The difference is important as beliefs can be false).

Ethics are studied within philosophy. People aren't told what is right or wrong, good or bad. Rather, people are taught about some of the major moral theories that have been entertained by various thinkers and they are encouraged to think critically about them in order to develop their own (reasoned and hopefully consistent) view. The three main theories are: Virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and Kantianism. They each have their pros and cons and constructing a theory that takes the best and leaves the worst has been a major task of ethics.

Divine commandment theory gets a mention but it is fairly swiftly dispensed with. Here is why (Meno's paradox - Plato):

1) Is something good because god says it is good...
2) Or does god say it is good because it really is good?

1) The thought is that something is good because god commands that it be so. On this view what is good could have been different if god had commanded differently.

2) On this view god has access to facts about whether something is good or not. his divine command (to us) is basically to inform us of that.

If the second is the case... Then we can ask 'what is it that god is picking up on when he sees that something is good?'. The three main candidates were described above.

If the first is the case... Then it seems that god could have maintained that torturing an innocent child solely for fun was good. But clearly it isn't! and anyone who who followed the command of that god would not be good, and a god that commanded that would not be good! and thus... we have a reductio of the first.

So... Meno's paradox shows us that either divine command theory can be reduced to something along the lines of the three main ethical theories, or that it is patently absurd. you choose (i won't tell you what to think).

on with the program ho!

critical thinking skills are hard to come by... there is a move to try and get it into the high school curriculum much earlier... it is hard, though. i think... the media (and lack of diversity in the media that the majority of the population gets) has a lot to answer for...

[kimmydawn]

As in an earlier similar thread, some of the basic points here steer the discussion to one of personal religious beliefs. Also, there was a recently closed thread on this same subject.

As such, and with the guideline on this subject being as it is, I feel it best to close this thread.

Don't hesitate to create a social group to have in-depth discussions such as this.

KD