h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My view on Christianity may seem a little lax to some people who don't know me that well. My view is to analyse every situation individually, decide who would be affected and then make a judgement, based on that, as to what action I should take. Things like drinking, and sex have always had their arguments, but if it doesn't adversely affect anyone, is it wrong?

As long as everything is well thought out, I think that that is a fair way of doing things.....

It's a good theory, but not an original one [sorry!]. Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s created 'Situation Ethics' which uses the Christian idea of 'agape', which is non-preferential love, 'love thy neighbour' etc. Fletcher conluded that to the the best thing, morally was to do the most loving thing. Therefore, you cannot say that anything is right or wrong, because in each circumstance, the answer will be different.

Oh! I didn't mean it to be original, I was just wondering about other people's view on the situation. It's nice to know that there is someone held in esteem thinks the same way! It even has a name!

glad i could help

However: this does have faults
It calls for non-preferential love, which some say is too difficult to actually do. E.g. if there are two people drowning in a river, you only have enough to save one. One is a world-class doctor who performs chemotherapy, and helps beat cancer into remission. The other is your father: who do you save, because the most loving thing would be to save the doctor [unless your father is also the doctor!], but you probably have more of an emotional connection with your father...
Also, many criticise S.E., because when bringing up children, there is a need for strict rules to learn what is right and wrong... which S.E. doesn't provide...
...that ought to put the cat amoungst the pigeons
FwT

mmmm.....tough call.....It does raise the 'Why not call a lifeguard' kind of quesion for me....

But if were talking about S.E, isn't it actually kinder to punish children for ther faults to stop them from hurting themselves later on in life<?> Or am I missing the point....<?>

me too!

The analogies aren't completely water-tight [] but children do need a moral frameeork within which to grow up in, even if it's just to rebel against when they're teenagers.

*- bad pun, but it works *

Children do need moral framework.....But it doesn't need to be Christian.......

I'm not saying that children have to have a moral framework that is christian: it could be Muslim, Hindu or other religions, or it could come from a non-religious source like Kantian ethics, or even Natural Law.
[sorry to bombard you with terminology!]
But the point that is being made, is that rules are needed for a basis of a moral system, regardless of what that system is...

Definitely. I totaly agree with you. Everything has to follow rules, even atheism......

but if you're atheist then where is the authority in the rules you follow?

I'm *not* an athiest, but atheists must have conviction in the fact that there is no God....The authority I suppose is in the government....*shrug* I don't know enough about that...

I do agree. I think that in the early years a definite sensation of right or wrong has to be established. But as children grow, they have to learn to take control of their own decisions, and hence anaylse situations themselves. And also that their parents are not infallable! Maybe I'm biased- that was the way I was brought up!

In terms of atheism, do you just see that it's a means to an end? That's not clear is it. I mean, by having a moral code, it creates a better society? So in a sense you are doing it for yourselves and your society. Is that right?

The situational ethics examples are, of course, doubly flawed:

- firstly, you, as a human, have equal value ethically to other humans. Therefore, what you want is one parameter which must be included in the decision.
- secondly, they generally assume perfect symmetry and perfect information. Situations are NEVER symmetrical. Perfect symmetry is an interesting thought-experiment, but what you'd actually do is save the drowning guy you could actually reach. And perfect information supposes you could predict all the consequences of all your possible actions, such as the doctor curing cancer. Frankly if you had such remarkable predictive abilities, it would be natural to imagine that the doctor and your father did, too, and would not have been so foolish as to fall in the water without being able to swim.

That is why you cannot say which person you'd save now; each situation is different. And yes, you probably would save the person you could reach.

You can only act on the information you have. You may strive for all you can, but you never know everything. Sometimes that's okay, sometimes not. But whatever, you have to make the decision you feel is right at the time.

The only difficult thing being a Christian is trying to take yourself out of the equation. I sometimes find myself thinking 'yes, but what do *I* want?' and not knowing. I try and take everything else in, but never know what *I* want to happen. I don't know if this is a good or a bad thing.

It's a weird thing ... I know what you mean. An epistemological nightmare!

http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/epistemologicalNightmare.html

Smullyan to the rescue.

I lost that completely. That was so confusing.

It is, isn't it? But it's very funny -- and the whole notion gets explained at the end by the psychiatrist.

Mostly the problem is with undistributed middles ....