Religion is a divisive virus and in the wrong hands a deadly weapon used to justify horrific acts.
and Sam Harris’ response:
I would love to hear your thoughts regarding this topic. Please feel free to comment and discuss.
This will be the first in a series of posts regarding Morality. Some time ago I read Henry Sedgwick’s The Method of Ethics. I found this to be a quite intriguing read that resulted in numerous reflective moments. I begin in chapter one…
“…moral action is often the Rightuess of the action itself and not any ulterior consequences, and that this is known intuitively in each case or class of cases;” as he continues and frames mans pursuit of morality he “…prefer[s] to consider Ethics as the science or study of what ought to be, so far as this depends upon the voluntary action of individuals.”
This initial distinction reconciles with my personal thoughts in that, morality is the concept and ethics is its application in practice. As a moralist one has a practical aim: they desire knowledge of right conduct in order to act on it. Derived from reflection one can seek unity of principle and work to find a consistency of methods at the risk of uncovering a paradox. Whereas, the dogmatic is apt to hold different principles at once, in a more or less confused combination.
“…hold that men, in so far as they attempt to make their conduct rational, do so, naturally and habitually, upon different principles and by different methods. I admit, of course, as a fundamental postulate of Ethics, that either these methods must be reconciled and harmonized, or all but one of them rejected.” The act of justification is heavy in man’s logic. With each subsequent re-framing of act, to align with ones narrative, portions of reality trickle away from the onslaught of reconciled time.
“At the same time I am not without hope of affording aid towards the construction of such a system; because it seems easier to judge of the conflicting claims of different modes of thought, after an impartial and rigorous investigation of the conclusions to which they logically lead.” As this will aid us as we embark to devise a method of which to apply the ethics of morality.
Part two to follow shortly…
Yet another great YANSS Podcast.
The Topic: Belief
The Guests: Will Storr, Margaret Maitland, and Jim Alcock
This episode brought to you by Squarespace. For a free trial and 10% off enter offer code LESSDUMB at checkout.
And by The Great Courses. Order Behavioral Economics and get 80% off the original price.
Put your right hand on your head. Unless you are near a mirror, you can no longer see your hand, but you know where it is, right? You know what position it is in. You know how far away it is from most of the other things around you. I’m using the word “know,” but that’s just for convenience, because you don’t actually know those things. That is, you can’t be 100 percent certain your hand is on your head. You assume it is, and that’s as good as it…
View original post 1,828 more words
Today is a dedication of recording thought. Often I find my mind drifting among philosophical chatter. I try to reflect back on those thoughts and wonder if there is any actual clarity to the presence of narrative as it generates. Also, in my efforts I want to explore any bias that is present that would influence the framing, adoption, or rejection of thoughts as they pertain to the establishment of larger concept adoption.
My plan is to start a thought reflection piece and see if the application of these philosophical thoughts have any true ramifications on my actions within the relationships I have.
As I listen to lectures, read books or listen to material I want to record the thoughts generated from these concepts and track their progression as they pertain to the larger concepts of life.
I invite you to join me in conversation, in addition, in response to, reply to, or to add on to any thoughts shared and lessons learned.