I just posted this in our "sameness" but, for me, it addresses this question. Apologies if I'm being too present with this,

--------

Beyond us all there lies a vast abyss of mystery that no human mind has the capacity to fathom and about which we can say far less than will ever make us comfortable.
Our varied faiths provide us with narratives of human proportions that, when we accept them, let us organise our trust around sufficient cultural/religious/scientific/ethical norms to carry on, day by day, year by year, as if we inhabit a reality in which enjoy enough control to provide for our survival.
Death disturbs us and titillates us, it fills our "entertainment" but upsets our emotions. It reminds us of our situation, our mortality. It reminds of unknowability, of the inevitability of mystery.
So, although it is ultimately impossible to escape isolation within our own, unique individual consciousness, we try to overcome our existential loneliness (and our fear of the unknown) by bonding with others: families, professions, cultures, religions, clubs, interests, activities, media simulations… websites like this one. We will even try to bond with members of other species.
In all of this, we are all very much alike.
Were we to emphasise our differences too strongly, our personal as well as our social worlds would fall apart. We could no longer "belong" (and belonging is far more important than owning, even though we may not all know it.)
We need to believe in each other; we need to love each other — whether or not we think it's a good idea. We are each too vulnerable not to. Love is, in fact, axiomatic to our existence.
So "God" REALLY IS love.
And we can all, in a very real sense, walk with the Christ or the Prophet, or the Buddha because in so many ways, they are us… and we can be them.

Fakirs Canada

This link is much too long I know. I'm not asking everyone to read it. Its only for those who are really interested like I am.

Picking up on witch's discussion that you mentioned  about the truth its a little hard to come by. Witch is very intelligent as you may have guessed. He knows his stuff! I read that thread and I began to wonder why is it so important to us that there only is one God? What's the big deal if we have a few....lol. So, I researched some of the biblical Gods.

When the Old T. was translated the scribes lumped the Gods together as in Lord, Jehovah,  Lord God, El, Elhoim or whatever due to laziness or ignorance. Its too complicated to write about so I'll post links. It seems the Jews had many Gods. El Elyon as an example decided to give the Israelites Jahweh to be their God so it seems El Elyon had more power. Here's some links maybe of interest to the literalists. I don't know.

What I'm saying is how is it possible for any one person to have the  absolute truth in view of the many many Gods? So...I'll sort of go with God is all of these and yet none of these exactly. I think the best definition I like for God is "energy" as in all and through all meaning God is the ocean and we are the drops although I also believe God is the Other as well. I do think God surpasses  human definitions. I had Hindu friends who had many statues but they explained the statues were a type of reminder of holiness. They didn't worship them. God was much higher and above all of this imagery.

Hi Marnie:

We do have a Unified Theory of God, but it is just that: Unified! Meaning that it is in an inseparable and undefinable state of Synthesis, a zero state in which all is One.

The Synthesis which is God cannot be analyzed. Well, it can be analyzed, but then it is no longer Synthesis. The Truth which is God is entirely in the Unitive Experience, in the Experience of God as a Synthesis.

Synthesis can't be verbalized and still be Synthesis. That's why Socrates, John the Baptist, Jesus, and other sages indicated truth by pointing the imploring index finger heavenward.

In purely mystical traditions like Zen Buddhism or some of the Sufi traditions, one simply obtains Unity with God, and then acts directly and intuitively from the depth of the Unitive Experience, without intervention by the faculty of logic.

On the emotional level, the Unitive Experience manifests itself as Unitive Awarenss, Unitive Consciousness and Conscience, and Unitive Love.

However, we are logical beings, and can't do without analysis. When we logically define our Unitive Experience of God, then it is best to stick as much as possible to Unitive terms concepts.

Only the Truth of Synthesis is absolutely or ultimately True. The truth of analysis depends on the viewpoint of the observer, which is arbitrarily chosen by the observer. Even the most basic scientific observation has two possible viewpoints and truths, more complex observations have more, and something as complex as the human experience has a virtually limitless number of possible viewpoints and truths!

It is not that analytical truth is not true, but it is relative to the viewpoint of the observer, which is arbitrarily chosen by the observer!

There are two truths at work in the universe: the primary, capital T Truth of Synthesis, and the secondary, small t truth of analysis. The small t truth of analysis is always subordiante to the capital T Truth of Synthesis. Synthesis is always the greater Truth, and analysis the lesser thruth. Ideally, analysis should be in the service of Synthesis.

I hope I'm making some sense.

In Cosmic Unity,

Arminius

The panentheist model is the most logically sound model imo. It's very flexible because it doesn't have to be intelligent, which means there doesn't have to be any motivation for the universe to even exist.

Whereas Christ represents the Love of God, the Buddha represents the Wisdom of God.

Fakirs Canada, see the recent post titled **GOD** for a new age and rather esoteric description of God.

The interesting theological issue is focused around how God is or is not an active agent in history.   The responses show there are several doctrines about God alive and well in the church - classical theism, pantheism, deism, and panentheism.

Within conservative circles a doctrine of revelation allows for God to intervene in history.   This  is Ontological supernaturalism. There is a power who has determined all things and can interrupt the world’s normal processes, and has in the past and might still do so in the future.  A revision is free will theists  who hold God COULD determine all-things, but God self limited God.  So there is an element of free will in determining daily life.

However, such views are hard to hold for most modern people. Some have reverted to Deism, where God started it all, gave rules and then left center stage.  This was the understanding of such people like Newton. 

While that view is still operative it is not religiously satisfying.  Liberal theologians rejected ontological supernaturalism.   They settled the issue of truth by experience and reason.   Faith becomes a private experience and is not testable except by the action of the believer.   The testing is based on faithfulness to tradition and /or how the believer shows their faith by ethics.  The foundational mode of religion, the reality of God was not sustainable.   God could only be experienced indirectly not directly.
 
An “Act of God” becomes something that evokes faith in the believer.   It could be how a passage of scripture seems to be so right for a moment, creating faith.  Yet Incarnation cannot be a metaphysical reality.   Liberal theology, while in part helpful, called into question divine activity.   This undercuts religious experience as a direct experience of God.

There is also a movement to a form of gnosticism. It has many different  forms and one that emerged in response to the enlightenment and deism is a form of theosophy.  Here the natural world is reduced to the the spiritual world.  What truly animates the natural world is spirit and the job of the religious seeker is to find that spirituality and let it inform them.  It has an appeal but what it is based on is a form of dualism and accepts that the task of the person is become more spiritual.  While that is a worthy goal the foundational metaphysics is a denial of our experience of our material experience.  It is another dualism of mind body split.  The body becomes only the form or container to carry the spirit and leads to a world denying theology - where our true reality is spirit.  It does reflect the understanding that there is a direct experience of God but does deny incarnation.  The goal is God consciousness not in the sense that God informs consciousness. The goal is the disappearance of our self awareness - the sense of self disappears.  It also has a telos that is built on a future eschatology that means the end of human experience is to be enfolded into the divine.  It loses the idea that all of creation goans for fullness.

This does sound like like the idea that God interacts with us in space and time but its goal is still to become gods rather than humans more fully alive.  Agency is pure God agency and we become little gods.  While attractive it still is a world denying theology. 

What tradition affirmed was an experience of God that enlivened all actual reality and informed human agency.  This is the telos of humans becoming more fully human - an embodied spirituality.

For the person who wants to affirm religious experience panentheism is the most helpful.  It understands that what is real  is created out of the ultimate units of the world which are momentary events in interaction with other events to create actual things which are also momentary.   Given this we can make sense of God interacting with the world and thus prayer to be a reality.  Actuality, what is, arises out of the influences of the past, the world around, leaves room for the influence of God, and completes itself by the individual deciding how to respond to those influences in light of its own aims. God offers beauty, harmony, and novelty to each nano second but cannot force this on the world. God influences through persuasion and there is freedom and creativity to accept or reject the influences of God in each nano second.   Prayer is an offering back to God our resolutions of events to be used in the next becoming process. and it also opens us to the experience of God in this moment.

Here is the problem-  God as subject.   The postmodern and scientific  turn in thinking has  made us  rethink  what is meant by subject or the human person.  Substance thinking held there was a irreducible core that was the person or the meaning of  a thing - what some have called the soul as the non perishing part of the person.  Well substance thinking has been destroyed by modern physics et al.  We no longer have ‘thing’ based ontology of substance, we have living ontology of subjects.  A person is its relationships - we now have a metaphysics of subjectivity. (C.F. Hegal)

Often theologians used the idea of God as person using the analogy of presented.  Now  the biblical record offers us a “God is personal”, to explain God’s relation to the world.  However, the biblical insight is not sufficient to address in what way or how metaphysically God is personal.   It can give us only metaphors which are real but when pressed open new questions. God relates to us as persons is a placeholder for an answer rather the answer itself.   The modern period made it more difficult to speak in this way, unless one choose to depend only on the bible or supernatural explanations.  This is because the grounding analogy of presented no longer was a substance base reality.  The question became one of subject relating to subject. And given modern sense perception where was this other reality that is a subject? To relate was to be in space and time.   This then calls into question any notion of God beyond space and time,  or self sufficient its self, or merely transcendent.  

To answer this problem some conservative theologians continued in ontological supernaturalism where “God is wholly other and beyond and self sufficient.  This still leaves us with the problem of personally relating.  It has to be take on faith.  It is beyond experience.

Process thought following  William James offers a “thicker and more radical empiricism.”   It is called “perception in the mode of causal efficacy.”    We have direct experience of the world beyond our minds - we feel at a deep level with out bodies.  This allows for influence of others at the feeling level, and the influence of the past and the actual world - all having causation.

The answer is complex and let me give a simplified version of panentheism.  “In” is a metaphor as in the world is ‘in’ God and God is ‘in’ the world.  The claim is there is an interdependence of God and world.  The world depends on God and God depends on the world.  The world depends on God because is the necessary and eternal source; it is God’s creative act that takes ‘no thing’ into some thing- out of chaos God brings order.  God depends on the world because the nature of God’s actual experience depends on the interaction with finite creatures like ourselves.  (C.F. Philip Clayton).

While this can be related to the biblical view of God who relates and seeks to bring God’s kingdom to earth, this also relates to the scientific view of emergence,  Paul Davis suggests the cosmos is an emerging reality between simplicity and complexity.  It is moving to more and more complexity an “interacting system forming a hierarchy of structure.”  This is the lure of God calling self determining reality into new forms of reality.  This is the abstract pole of dipolarism.  In God’s primordial nature- the consistency -is the aim of God to more beauty et al - the pure love or perfect love.  In this sense God is unchanging - in the abstract because can do no other thing then be creative love. God must by necessity desire to love and be in relationship. In God’s consequent nature is the necessity ot relating and being affected by the relationship.  God is influenced by the world.

“Creative love” of God is that God aims at the greatest possible good for each individual that be achieve. The outcome of this aim God only knows when we actualize.   In “responsive love” of God, God responds sympathetically to the world.  God experiences the evil and joys and pain and sorrows we experience.  In that experience God responses with an aim to wholeness.  Again the biblical understanding of responding and sustaining is given metaphysical grounding.  It is real in the sense of deep empiricism and not just some false hope that we have created.  It is in the very nature of what is.

One final point is evil.  Panentheism offers us a way of understanding it without a God of the gaps or that there is evil in God.  God can only act persuasively, that means cannot force change.  Because of our self determination God could only offer the possibility of enjoying life with the other side of suffering pain.  Pain is a given in evolution and our response, by God’s Grace,  is to move to joy and healing.    Even divine power cannot create the good without the risk of the evil.  God can only know things when they happen and respond out of God’s intentions for more beauty that is appropriate for that moment.  God takes in all  things, including the evil that is, and redeems it by the filter of the primordial nature of pure love and offers that experience back to us as redeemed, in every nano second.

Given panentheism we can again use the metaphor of a personal God who cares for all of creation.

Hi Fakirs Canada,

I personally believe that the "who" of God is more important than the "what" of God.

In answering the "who" question I can reference God in relational terms. 

The relational titles given to God of Lord, Master, Father, Sovereign, Friend, Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer allow me to set a series of relationships that connect me to God and, in some ways, define what would be acceptable discourse.

Acceptable going both ways of course.  As Lord, God is due all respect and, God is responsible to protect those who are called upon to give respect.

The "who" questions allow us to discern distance between ourselves and God.

The "what" questions strike at the nature of God and I think that becomes more of a distraction.  God's nature, as spirit, is difficult to relate to.  It can be felt when it chooses to be felt.  If cannot be touched, or tasted, or smelt, or heard, or seen.  I have no way to reference that.

That is the real dilemma.  I think we can discern God.  I don't think it is a good idea to try that discernment without the benefit of community although I know I have discerned the presence of God when I was by myself.

Knowing God is near, feeling God right next to you or all around you doesn't really tell you what is going on or what God intends to happen next.  Having some insight into the character of God does help.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hello Faris.................God bless you.....

I will be discussing just this today on the Open Table....I believe God is the Unifer, Creator, Carrier of the Truth..as Jesus says... I am the Way the Truth....and because I believe and trust in this Enitiy...Creator...with Faith...He has open doors to me to become the Spiritual person I am...I believe God does not know the truth..but is the Truth...His very own nature Is The Truth....they cannot be separated.....

IJL:bg

Hello, thank you for the input to date.  I'm not ignoring you.  I'm still pondering your replies, by which I am delighted.  I think you all have awesome intellects. Have a great Sunday.  I hope to have some feedback ready for the input so far, by Monday.

While that is a nice thought , the bible tells us Jesus Christ is God and the only way possible.

That demands a decision. But the bible is very exclusive in letting us know that to choose Buddha or any other besides Christ , is not palpable and will not be useful to us.

While expounding the virtues of being good to one another , and relying on one another is nice and heartwarming , it does leave us wondering why we should do any of that if there really is no reason to with the exception of satisfying our need for the warm and fuzzies. If there is no known absolute right or wrong , who is able to tell me what I should do..Buddha? Prophets? ..since they do not all agree on things ... they cannot all be correct. Therefore it would seem it is all or nothing...either the exclusivity of the bible is true , or we need follow nothing...and noone should be able to say otherwise.

Hi Marnie:

In a relativistic universe, the small t truth of analysis is an arbitrary creation. If only absolute Truth is regarded as true, then all analytical truths are untrue because they are not absolutely true in that sense.

In a relativistic universe such as ours, the only absolute Truth is the capaital T Truth of Synthesis. We can't say anything about IT, but we can experience IT, and do experience IT, moment by precious moment--if we'd quit analyzing for a moment!

And, for me, the absolute Truth of Synthesis is God. And we can experience IT in all ITS splendor in the pure, unanalyzed experience.

eagle

So once again we come full circle to "My way of the highway?"

IT

Russ

Fallacy of false dichotomy x 2.

The idea that there is the Bible or more precisely your particular interpretation of the Bible, or nothing, is a construct which fails to take into account all of the other moral codes of all of the other ways to God of all of the other religions, all of whom have just as valid a claim to truth as does your Bible. You have no more objective evidence that your version is "the" truth than does mine, or theirs.

The second fallacy is that there is either absolute morality (in particular your version and perception of morality) or there is none. No one in the history of mankind has ever been able to point to an actual example of a moral concept that is absolute. How can one reasonably make a claim of absolute for something one cannot even show exists? Furthermore the idea that only your particular version of Christianity has any moral fiber is, quite frankly, ludicrous. I am a Witch of very high morals. Even Atheists demonstrate moral fiber consistently within society.

Unfortunately your statement of "truth" fails on any level other than as "opinion".

And the flat earth society says...well...the earth is flat?  And that anythign else is crazy.  Does that mean that just because they say it is...it is?

As-Salaamu Alaiykum

-Omni

You beat me to it buddy.

But w/e. I'm still commenting. Why is it that either the bible is the truth or nothing is? Why can't the Qur'an be the truth, or the Vedas? But more importantly imo, why do any of them have to be the be all end all of morality? Ethical relativism doesn't mean everyone can be as evil as they want. It means we can all be free to decide what is best for us. Even though I'm an ethical relativist, I don't kill people and I don't go stealing. Somehow, I've kept myself from doing anything that would get me arrested. Sure, I do things and want to do things that are against the law, but only because I reasonably disagree with those laws. I make my own rules, some agree with the constitution, others don't. However, I am still able to keep myself morally afloat without the aid of any religious text. How can you explain that eagle?

Re Witch's "No one in the history of mankind has ever been able to point to an actual example of a moral concept that is absolute."

What exactly do you mean by a moral concept that is absolute?"  Because, according to my definition of a absolute moral concept as being a moral parameter that is absolutely and in every case a determiner of 'good' or 'evil' - I can think of any number that most reasonably good and reasonbly sane people would consider to be absolutely applicable in every case as a determiner of human good and evil.  So, unless you'd like to debate the 'relativism' of sex with minors as a bad thing, and supporting your legal dependents as a good thing....I think you're either going to have to retract your statement - or come up with a new and credible definition of an absolute moral concept.

Reply to Omni's "And the flat earth society says."

Omni, what post and statement exactly was this in reference to?

Re killer rabbit's: I am still able to keep myself morally afloat without the aid of any religious text. How can you explain that eagle?"

Let me just play devil's advocate here:  kr:  how can you be sure that you are in fact keeping yourself morally afloat?"  Doesn't your certainty in that respect presuppose the existence of an absolute moral as an 'objective barometer,' "independent of any moral text"?

Fakirs Canada

You said "I can think of any number that most reasonably good and reasonbly sane people would consider to be absolutely applicable in every case as a determiner of human good and evil."

Example, thou shalt not kill.  And yet you go back to the Crusades and we had people killing in the name of God.

I agree with Witch, morals are relative.

IT

Russ

Yes there is no big T truth in the human construction of ethics.  And there is a difference between a moral code which is always culturally specific and ethical reflection - in the theory of ethical reflection there is no relativism, and there is relativism to the outcome which is a moral code.  In this sense what the human -cultural construction is is an approximatization.  It is the abstraction and the abstraction is never the thing in itself.  One can make ethical statements - murder is wrong and that is a different statement than killing is wrong.  For those who say killing is wrong absolutely then even the killing of any life form is wrong - then a code is made to living with the fact to live is to kill something - a plant- an animal etc.  Then the code will say animals are life forms and plants are not - thus even here a code is made relative and yet absolute - what can you kill becomes the question.

Now murder is a form of killing and by making it the ethical norm we have already dealt with the abstraction to say it is a form of killing that is wrong - what then is murder - it means without cause to take a life.  Now one can say there is a relativism here but the point is a hard core ethical ground that is universal - murder demands justification because it is universally seen as wrong.

One does not need God to arrive at this but the history tells us ( and there is a research done at UBC on this - seen as scientific) that it is religion that created the code against murder - and one could say, as Geertz does, religion creates culture and there is a evolution of religious thinking that takes the abstract and makes it contextual and it is the contextual that changes as we apply it, finding it wanting at times and helpful at other times - and it is the helpful to culture of the human shaped ideas that we build ethical reflection on.

Well there are several difficulties, actually. First of all, let us define what we mean by absolute vs relative. An absolute can never change, and is dependant on nothing else, and will always apply regardless. The moment you can say "it depends on", or any such phrase, it ceases to be absolute. Secondly one must identify the difference between a moral concept, and a moral case. That, in itself is extraordinarily difficult, and depends on (doah!) human perceptions. I think we can agree that "thou shalt not murder" is a moral concept, whereas "thou shalt not kill Rev John for offering a boring sermon" is a moral case. Where the line is drawn between the two is more difficult. I suggest that, for the purposes of discussion, if it points to a specific, we call it a case. Also a moral absolute must be an imperative. If something is simply "better" or "preferable", it is not an absolute, as it is by definition compared to a standard, and is, therefore, relative.

In your example of sex with minors, although I would be inclined to view it as a case, with the moral concept being "thou shalt not harm children", still we can show that even that is not an absolute. First of all, it depends on the definition of a minor which is not universal. Also one must consider that marriage to a minor has only become "immoral" very late in even western society. You may not be aware that marriage of an adult male to a female as young as 12, which I'm sure you wil agree is a child, was legal in Quebec up until the early 1980's. Also one must consider that the idea of sex with a minor, by another minor, two teenagers for instance, is entirely different than with an adult. Thus the whole case is dependant on a huge number of factors. Thus it is relative, morally.

We can also show that your second example of supporting your dependants is not an absolute. I could point to a number of factors, but we really only need one, to make an absolute into a relative. So in the interest of time...

It is considered a responsibility for one to care for one's dependants, yes, except in cases where one cannot by reason of debilitating mental or physical infirmity. Thus caring for dependants depends on ones ability in this case. It is therefore relative.

I hope I've answered your objection to my statement Fakirs. Well challenged too, I might add. We've had this discussion here before and so far, no one has ever been able to demonstrate an absolute moral concept. Indeed, no one in the history of modern or classical philosophy has ever been able to do so. My opinion, and the opinion of most philosophers, is that realtivism is a quality of morals, and cannot be seperated from it.

In any case, I do invite anyone who believes in moral absolutes to either demonstrate a moral absolute, or to show any moral code or concept that is "God-given", that is, can be objectively shown to have originated from God.

The question can be turned - is there a universal?  Something that is beyond a moral or a culture?  Harming children may be allowed in a culture - as it was in Rome - but there was a negative reaction to this activity then and even more so now.  Does this point to a universal - not in the sense of how witch points to absolute but an aim that flows through history and we get more precision on it.

We can posit then, through the trajectory, an idea an originating idea - not absolute but an aim toward.

Hi Pan:

I think we access the "universal" intutively. Universal at-one-ment, the universe as synthesis, as an inseparable whole, the experience of which results in universal, unitive love. And this experience leads to the originating idea.

I can be sure because as far as I know, nobody that I know in RL hates me. I have plenty of friends who say I'm a good person and my parents don't hate me so what else am I supposed to think?

I believe that morallity is a reality but only because we make it one. I also believe that good and evil are relative so when I say I am "morally afloat" I mean in the eyes of society and in the eyes of people I know. We all have our own sense of what is good and bad, and what is right and wrong. It just isn't based on universal constants imo.

reply to killer rabbit re :  "I can be sure because as far as I know, nobody that I know in RL hates me. I have plenty of friends who say I'm a good person and my parents don't hate me so what else am I supposed to think?"

KR, would you like a list of all the terrorists and white-collar criminals who could say the same thing - even after their convictions?

Reply to Witch re:  "Well, there are several difficulties, actually.  First, let us define what we mean by absolute vs relative."

Well, Witch, however old you are, I think you're freakin' brilliant.  And if you're not a lawyer by profession, you might want to consider taking it up.  I very much enjoyed reading your response.  You make some very good points.

So, let us narrow that moral case down a little bit, then, shall we?  Can we agree that the prohibition of sex with seven-year-olds would constitute an absolute moral principle? 

Re Panentheism "Does this point to a universal...aim that flows through history" and Arminius "I think the universal may be accessed intuitively"

And I think you two are onto something very possibly awesome.  Could you please work more on your complementary lines of thought??

I don't understand what you want me to say about this. Do you think I'm a terrorist or something just because I don't care about the constitution?

reply to KR: no silly, I don't think you're a terrorist.  I am just pointing out that your parameters of goodness are very subjective.  One hopes there is something more objective that we may seek as a standard of goodness in ourselves, because the words of peers, friends and family members are notorious for their unreliability on that score.  My point is, I don't think you should accept that as being an objective standard.  I wasn't trying to suggest that your family and friends are wrong about you. 

No we can't. We can say that it is a very popular and near-universal moral principle in our society, but let's consider that Muhammad married a six-year-old, so in his culture it must not have been such a big deal. You are also not clear about whether or not the sex is consentual. Can you say that two-way consentual sex is ever wrong? If you say yes because of age then you are being ageist. However, now we have to talk aboutif ageism is always wrong or if it can ever be reasonable.

OK, thanks. I understand what you mean now. I agree that most people want there to be an objective standard for morals but I don't see how there can be one the way the universe seems to work. An objective moral system would suggest an equally objective reward/punishment system as well. If we apply this to deistic theism, pious people would always have good fortune and impious people would be miserable (or there would be no impious people because everyone would end up changing to piousness in order to live happy lives). If this were true then we should be able to expermentally determine what is pious behavior and what is impious behavior, since there would be a clear causal connection between goodness and badness. However, a causal connection like this has never been demonstrated and I believe that there is plenty of evidence against it. That is why I'm a relativist.

Three problems come immediately to mind.

1. You've already called it a case. Cases are not principles.

2. If you have to narrow a moral concept down in order to make it absolute, then it becomes dependant on how much you are willing to narrow it. Thus it becomes relative.

3. While I agree that, in my estimation of morality, sex with a child, including one of seven years old, is wrong, it would appear that your premise depends upon the age of the child, perhaps even on the definition of a child. Thus it is relative.

P.S. Thank you for your kind words. I am also enjoying debating with you. You obviously know how to do so skillfully, and without taking it personally.

As witch and killer have pointed out - in my words - there is a difference between morality and ethical reflection - the first is cultually dependent and the later is reflection on what has been seen as problematic and then suggesting that there is a universal -not some moralistic law giver- but a desire for wholeness in human activity and we create human shaped ideas of the good. 

If we begin with the fact that life is a robbery - that is we and all life live off one another - than the robbery demands justification thus the beginning of ethical reflection.

Clifford Geertz suggests that there is a universal human existential reality:  It is the questions of meaning, do we matter?  Is what we have done satisfying?  Have we contributed to the well- being larger than our selves?  What is the meaning of our sense of being related to other things?  And the sense of a subjective well being that comes from what we do.  This is the idea of a moral self where our vocation is directed to the fulfillment and the completion of meaning existent innately in all things.  You will note that in these questions is a sense of us being a self -in- the world.  Relationally is basic, we are not just individuals and thus complete relativism is impossible, because we influence and are influenced by things around us.  The question then becomes how can our impact be for the well being rather than the ill will for all of creation?

To get at some of these questions I am going to suggest some naturalistic grounds for values.  I am also suggesting that the religion has had an influence in what we take as the good life.  Yet we cannot claim a priviledged religious ethic.  An example is that human rights may have emerged out of monotheism and religious reflection, and now human rights have reality of their own which will now affect religious ethics.

Aristotle believed virtues led to happiness.  I use the term well-being for happiness. The happiness that Aristotle spoke of was not necessarily the same that we would think of today. Today our view of happiness tends to be hedonic. We want to feel good immediately and tend not to think too far ahead.

The ancient Greeks had a very different perspective on well-being.  It is not an emotional state; it is more about being all that you can, fulfilling your potential. The idea is living in a way that reaches your full potential, you bloom or flourish and so display the best version of you that you can be.

We see this in monotheistic religious.  God is good and desires that people experience well being.  Creation is good and should always experience that well being.

By virtues, it is  the act of achieving balance and moderation.  It is the creation of character.  For that is another name for this way of ethics - character ethics.
For example, courage would be the balance and moderation between excessive amounts, rashness and insufficient amounts, cowardice. Generosity would be the mid-ground between being a wasteful spendthrift and being a miser.
 

There is a debate on how character is developed.  Some would have us begin with knowledge - there is a given moral demand we must come to know it. ( We see this echoed in the will of God language or moral absolutes.) For Socrates knowledge would automatically lead to the right action. Yet the greatest misdeed was to know the right course, but fail to do it.  Thus we  must find a way to harmonize knowledge and doing.

Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character.  Some of us want to harmonize this  approach with one that emphasizes duties or rules ( deontology) and with that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism).  At the moment most thinking begins in one or the other idea.  And rule based ethics are harder to hold in a pluralistic and postmodern culture.  We hear this in the idea of the relativity of ideas - cultural based values.  This means in a pluralistic culture no one rule based value system can be protected or privileged.  No longer can any religious group force its perspective on a society, it now must prove it to be adequate to the issues of the times.  It is not good enough to say this is the “will of God’  The burden of proof is to show how it creates the common good and well being for all.

Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as "Do unto others as you have done to you."

A virtue ethics would suggest both aspects are going on in the creation of character - by looking at practical knowledge and how the common good has arrived one see how action creates rules and how rules help create action.  Thus  helping the person to be charitable or benevolent is  also  seems to be universal value. We learn what might be universal from what we actually do.

.
Given that a virtue is  a multitrack disposition, it would obviously be reckless to see one act or a single observed action or even a series of similar actions and say that is who the person is, especially if you don't know the agent's reasons for doing as she did. (Sreenivasan 2002)  Possessing a virtue is a matter of degree, for most people who can be truly described as fairly virtuous, and certainly markedly better than those who can be truly described as dishonest, self-centred and greedy, still have their blind spots — little areas where they do not act as one would expect. So someone honest or kind in most situations, and notably so in demanding areas may nevertheless be trivially, tainted by snobbery, inclined to be disingenuous about their forebears and less than kind to strangers with the wrong accent.

It is not easy to get one's emotions in harmony with one's rational recognition of certain reasons for action. I may know what to do rationally but fail to fallow through because inner conflicts. In the development of the moral character there is an attempt to be what one believes to be moral - and that means one can have a strength of will - consistent and yet at the same time know there are situations where one  struggles against contrary desires; to control a desire or temptation to do otherwise.

If it is the circumstances in which the agent acts — say that she is very poor   when she sees someone drop a full purse, or that she is in deep grief when someone visits seeking help — then indeed it is particularly admirable of her to restore the purse or give the help when it is hard for her to do so.

 This is to look at how we actually function to help us determine virtues.  Dispositions, like kindness, can be possessed by children, and although children thus endowed would undoubtedly be very nice children, we would not say that they were morally virtuous or admirable people. The ordinary usage, or the reliance on motivation by inclination, gives us what Aristotle calls "natural virtue" .

The virtuous  mature adult has that which nice children, including nice adolescents, lack.  Both the virtuous adult and the nice child have good intentions, but the child is much more prone to mess things up because he is ignorant of what he needs to know in order to do what he intends. A virtuous adult is not, of course, infallible and may also, on occasion, fail to do what she intended to do through lack of knowledge, but only on those occasions on which the lack of knowledge is not culpable ignorance.  It is part of practical wisdom to know how to secure real benefits effectively; those who have practical wisdom will not make the mistake of concealing the hurtful truth from the person who really needs to know it in the belief that they are benefiting him.

Quite generally, given that good intentions are intentions to act well or "do the right thing", we may say that practical wisdom is the knowledge or understanding that enables its possessor, unlike the nice adolescents, to do just that, in any given situation. 

To do the right thing characteristically comes only with experience of life. Amongst the morally relevant features of a situation may be the likely consequences, for the people involved, of a certain action.  It is part of practical wisdom to be wise about human beings and human life.

There is the issue of competing demands - situational appreciation - the wise agent's capacity is to recognize some features of a situation as more important than others, or indeed, in that situation, as the only relevant ones.  This is suggestive that there are values that transcend the particular and the develop of character needs the inclusion of those universal values. Those are standardly translated as "happiness" or "flourishing" and occasionally as "well-being."

The claim that these refer to a wider concept points to the idea of well-being is, avowedly, a moralized, or "value-laden" concept of happiness, something like "true" or "real" happiness or "the sort of happiness worth seeking or having." Yet there can be substantial disagreement between people with different views about human life.

All standard versions of virtue ethics agree that living a life in accordance with virtue is necessary for well being. Virtue ethics claim that a human life devoted to physical pleasure or the acquisition of wealth is not well being, but a wasted life, and also accept that they cannot produce a knock down argument for this claim proceeding from premises that the happy hedonist would acknowledge.

According to the well being ideal, the good life is the life committed to well being of all of life, and the virtues are what enable a human being to be a moral character because the virtues just are those character traits that benefit the greater good way, barring bad luck.  And according to  "naturalism", the good life is the life characteristically lived by someone who is good qua human being, and the virtues enable their possessor to live such a life because the virtues just are those character traits that make their possessor good qua human being (an excellent specimen of her kind.)

Cultural relativism is a challenge.  This is  the quite general metaethical problem of justifying one's moral beliefs to those who disagree, whether they be moral skeptics, pluralists or from another culture.

Much cultural disagreement arises, it may be claimed, from local understandings of the virtues, but the virtues themselves are not relative to culture. (Nussbaum 1988.)

What does virtue ethics have to say about dilemmas — cases in which, apparently, the requirements of different virtues conflict because they point in opposed directions? Charity prompts me to kill the person who would be better off dead, but justice forbids it.  Practical wisdom, will perceive that, in this particular case, the virtues do not make opposing demands or that one rule outranks another, or has a certain exception clause built into it.

What constitutes flourishing for human beings: The best available science today (including evolutionary theory and psychology) supports rather than undermines the ancient Greek assumption that we are social animals, like elephants and wolves. No rationalizing explanation in terms of anything like a social contract is needed to explain why we choose to live together, subjugating our egoistical desires in order to secure the advantages of cooperation. Like other social animals, our natural impulses are not solely directed towards our own pleasures and preservation, but include altruistic and cooperative ones.

This basic fact about us should make more comprehensible the claim that the virtues are at least partially essential to human flourishing 

It is the exercise of the virtues during one's life that is held to be at least partially fundamental to well being and a moral society.

 Virue ethics identifies the central question of morality as having to do with the habits, virtues and knowledge concerning how one should live one's life. This approach has a greater scope than others. This to focus on moral problems having to do with how to make the most of an entire human life, whereas most others often focus on such specific ethical debates such as abortion, homosexual rights, etc. Virtue ethics  is not silent on such matters, but it approaches them from a wider context and less rule-based standard.

This is an approach to moral philosophy that demonstrates how good judgement of individuals emanates from the development of good charcter. The underlying standards are grasped not through what a virtuous person "decides" but rather through the virtues of life that enable moral action to be both directed to its correct ends and consonant within its moral rationality.

One final way of speaking of this direction is to combine intrinsic value with instrumental value.  This value for oneself and only for the self and the value given by existence to other agents.  To combine affirms the two aspects of selfhood - that we are relational and free.  It is also to live in the world where nature ( creation) is good, good itself while affirm there is within nature death and negativity.

To begin a metaethical reflection, then, is to begin with the idea that all life is a robbery, we live off other things - to accept this as part of our reality, and then the justification of that robbery is the beginning of developing values that have ethical import for all of life.  The ethical character begins its development in memory and anticipation. 

Reply to Panentheism's "If we begin with the fact that life is a robbery - that we and all life live off one another"

If "we and all live live off one another," then that's not a robbery.  That's symbiosis.

That is description of living off one another - robbery begins the reflective process of what that means - robbery suggests that living off one another has the possibity of negative outcomes - when I kill a fly it is not good news to it - when I eat a veg. it is not good news to it.  Only from an instrumental view - which rejects intrinsic experience - does eating a cow have no impact to the cow - the instrumental denies any subjective experience of a cow and only humans can give it value - 

Symbiosis can be a word that allows us to excape from the fact of relateness - it is an attempt to excape the ethical question - it has it use but that is limited use.

Ya parasitism! Aren't human's lovely?

As-Salaamu Alaiykum!

-Omni

Remember in the Matrix when Smith compares humans to a virus? Makes you think eh?

kr

"Carbon based lifeforms infesting USS Enterprise"

IT

Rus

God to me is the Other - the other who journeys with me through life. Like all relationships there is a sense of sharing. He doesn't intervene in my life, but gives me support, strength and comfort along the way. For my part, I'm mindful of His Kingdom and all that entails - primarily love and justice.