GOD AND ETHICS (a short exchange between Jersey Flight and David Linz)

----------Flight to Linz----------

 
The best part about contemporary moral thinking is this:

Relativism: no trace of God.

Realism: no trace of God.

Seems to me that theists should be deeply concerned.

Contemporary Naturalism is arguing for moral objectivity without God, and surely this is not something to which any consistent theist can agree. 


----------Linz to Flight----------

 
I guess I still don't understand. You describe ethics in your first letter as "objective" but in the second letter you go back to saying that ethics is subjectively determined by what a given society needs. I find this to be the central difficulty in understanding your concept, Jersey. The perspective seems constantly to be shifting.

First you say we have an "ethics of discourse", the next moment you say we have an "ethics of power". One moment ethics are simply that which is determined to benefit a given society, the next ethics are determined by the conscience of a polemicist. At first ethical principles can only be discussed relative to common goals but later you say that different goals can become part of our ethical discourse. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I fail to see how these statements have any consistency. An "ethics of power" cannot also be an "ethics of exchange" (unless we are exchanging gunfire), and ethics cannot simultaneously be the purview of what is best for the body politic and also the purview of the polemicist who stands in opposition to that body politic. Perhaps each time we are talking about different "kinds" or "concepts" of ethics. However the array of different frameworks you set out is really confusing, I wonder how anyone is supposed to find the correct way to understand your opinion on this question.
 
Cheers,
      David


----------Flight to Linz----------


There is no such thing as Objectivity.

There is no contradiction between ethics of discourse and ethics of power (in the sense of what we have).

I can put things in your terms/ how would you do ethics without God [even though you do do ethics without God]? This is the course of my ethics.

When I said: 'Contemporary Naturalism is arguing for moral objectivity without God...' I at no point claimed this was my view (that was your assumption). I do not believe in moral Objectivity.

The point I was making is that either way you go God has no place in the picture.


----------Linz to Flight----------

 
Okay so you don't believe in objectivity at all? Fair enough, though I suppose your previous letter does disclose that certain important elements of moral realism are shared by some subset atheists. I still can't see how an ethics of discourse can coexist with an ethics of power, at least in the way you described them during our discussion.


----------Flight to Linz----------

 
Your reading is far too hasty (which is also proven by the fact that you thought I was advocating for Objectivity).

'There is no contradiction between ethics of discourse and ethics of power (in the sense of what we have).' Which was precisely the sense in which you raised the dichotomy between discourse and power in the first place.

What you are talking about is what happens when an ethics of discourse contradicts an ethics of power. This is a different conversation from the conversation of what we have.

"I still can't see how an ethics of discourse can coexist with an ethics of power..."

Then try thinking harder because this is the ethics we have.

I think the real problem (if you think about it) is not that you "can't see how an ethics of discourse can coexist with an ethics of power," but that it is not perfect enough to satisfy your skepticism. And yet, there is really no way to get beyond this conclusion. The solution is either to accept our ethical limitations or invent a fairytale, which is a God-of-the-gaps fallacy. The only choice is between an ethics of make-believe or an ethics-of-reality.

The most telling thing is how far behind in the discourse we have to search in order to find your God. 

God has no place in a conversation on ethics.

 
----------Linz to Flight----------

 
What do you mean ? I have variously heard ethics described as a "dialogue" as well as ethics described as a "power exchange" but never simultaneously. Unless you are taking the radical postmodern notion that all truth claims are power dynamics (in which case this critique would also apply to science and we would arrive at radical skepticism) , I don't see how your statement stands. If the application is so blindingly obvious, could you point me to the author who supports this thesis?

As for your talk about God. I did not introduce God to this conversation and I am increasingly puzzled by your attempt to turn this into a discussion about theology, especially after your insistence (in other contexts) that to introduce God into a discussion not already about theology is to abuse the dialectic.

Cheers,


----------Flight to Linz----------

 
Oh dear, now the truth comes forth. There is no one to support my thesis/ my thesis has no support! (which is a sure sign that my thesis is nonsense).

A "simultaneous" description defies all reason and common sense, but one should expect nothing less coming from a man without support.

However, the greatest terror for me is that I should be called a "radical postmodern." It should be clear enough that "power dynamics" have no power (in which case power dynamics never settle anything). Reject the powerlessness of power!

Once a man tried to hit me with a metal club, but I said, "Stop! do not hit me with that club." And by the coherence of my speech he stopped.

Power cannot settle anything because power has no power. We must not be fools; power plays no part in politics or the formation/ stability of society. Power is a powerless concept!

As per science, everyone knows that the conclusions of science are Eternal and Absolute. I would never contest the Objectivity of science.

Unfortunately my position is so "blindingly unobvious" that those with sight will never see it. But then again, I have only reached this position because I am blind.  

(I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with you that God has no place in ethics or anything else).

Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight

-
-
-