DiaBlogue<A>: E-TOE, the Line of Argument
In his exploration of The Ethical Universe, Alan clarified that he no
longer thinks of (I) [belief in] Truth as "inherently good", but what I might
term 'instrumentally good' in relation to (II)Love
[for others] and [III] [personal] Happiness. I am pleased that he concurred
with my analysis of the pre-Newtonian state of secular
ethics, yet curious about the source of his optimism that this handicap can be
overcome. [Read more] for what might be consider the ultimate
question...
Alan makes a number of intriguing statements that
I've been trying to piece together:
⁃ The answer to this current
state of affairs is not to give up and conclude that secular ethics is a dead
end, but rather to keep working on it, just as we did not give up
physics
⁃ I choose to use what I can
from various theories to inform my decisions without finding it necessary to
claim that any unified ethical theory presently exists.
⁃ I believe that belief in truth
is a very important part of ethical living, and that the hypothetical ethical
theory of everything will have place for it.
⁃ I think (I) is in a different
category from (II) and (III), primarily because (II) and (III) reflect the true
ends of ethics while (I) is a critical part of the path to get there.
Just to make sure I understand,
indulge me in my usual bout of rephrasing. It appears that Alan believes
that:
I. Goodness (or the lack thereof) is an objective
attribute of many actions.
II. Love for others is inherently
Good
III. The pursuit of Happiness is inherently
Good
IV. Any apparent conflict between (II) and (III)
is due to our imperfect understanding of Goodness
V. It is both possible and important to pursue
better theories of ethics
VI. Belief in Truth is an essential component of
that pursuit
Is that true, Alan? If
not, how would you clarify that
summary?
If so, though, then I just
have one question: why?
Why do you
consider your belief in (I-VI) to be justified? Or do you?
Posted: Fri - September 22, 2006 at 08:23 AM