Should society's ethics be decided by reason and rational debate?

J

Jabberwock

New member
Or just by being handed down and accepted unquestioningly from some source, religious or otherwise?

If the former, how can personal taste be distinguished from public ethics?
If the latter, how can this fit in with co-existence with other opinions?
Please answer the second part too.
 
>Should society's ethics be decided by reason and rational debate?<

Why not? 'twould be better than it is now, as long as that committee wasn't a group of elitists. That is how the problem started. A concensus could be reached.

>If the latter, how can this fit in with co-existence with other opinions?<

It can't, that is why it should never be. This is the description of dictatorship. I am sure it is a Cardinal Sin to my employer when I am late to work. Is it?
 
Of course we should use reason and rational debate. In my experience, reason almost always supports the ethics of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I find it hard to answer the second part of your question because you seem to assume these two approaches are mutually exclusive when they are not.

But I will say this. Personal taste cannot completely be eliminated from the analysis. We can only make a reasoned argument from certain premises that we hold. Many of those premises are supported by other arguments, but at some point, we must just accept certain premises as self-evident. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, we believe that God wrote these basic truths on our hearts.

There are certain things that we just all know to be true by intuition. The existence of other "opinions" usually is the result of self-interested blindness. On some level, we all know that the world would be a much better place if we waited until marriage for sex. Instead, we go ahead and have sex outside of marriage and then abort the resulting fetuses. But we concoct arguments to justify it because its convenient and it feels good.
 
The basis of all ethics is the instinctive desire that all social animals have to help society. If they didn't have that instinct they wouldn't be able to form a society.

From that basis, rationality and reason can flesh out a full set of rules that individuals should follow. Unfortunately there's plenty of room for error, and the system needs to adapt to changing circumstances and technology.

Religions are terribly bad at this adaptation, and start from a false position of revealed truth rather than reasoned deduction.
 
reason and rational debate - I do think many don't know what either is.
personal taste isn't always rational or fair which is why it will be shown as wrong when it's wrong - if your personal opinion is logical and rational then you can explain it and the rational/fair will understand
edit: Kimberly - christians and others deny same-sex couples marriage so I can't think much of your answer
 
Back
Top