Free DHTML scripts provided by Dynamic Drive
welcome to our humble abode!
posted by »|m|u|n|i|r|a|« at 6/01/2005 05:25:00 pm
Unfortunately, I'd say that the opinion of the intellectual majority lies with ethical relativism.
absolutely and some other identification labels for these people may be athiests, leftists, radicalists, evolutionists, communists....flynn pls supplement...
Agnostics? Or are they excluded because they DO believe in a Divine Being, but not any in particular?
i think agnostics would be included too if they believe that God prescribed ethical guidlines
People...at least these "intellectuals" have ethics! What about the people without any ethics or morals whatsoever- we should be more concerned about them! And I havn't read the article yet- but it's true that religion does not always correlate with morals! I mean think of the white people in America in the 70s- they were quite religious (their version of religiousness!)but didn't hesitate to maim or even "kill" the African Americans!Sometimes- it's better to deal with people with ethics than people who are religious!
when i speak of religion, i refer to the one true religion that is beneficial to humanity in its nature. yet ur quite right, anonymous, when you spoke of ""RELIGIOUS"" White Americans of the 70s. The simple reason for this disparity is that by messing with the Bible, they had stuffed up the morally taught by Jesus!What I'm saying is that not only does ethics originates from religion (or some sort of value system)but also that it is the staunchest maintainer of ethical conduct! Something contrived by reason can never do that no matter what these deluded people hold.
I've used the term "religion" too loosely,here...and I guess I should apologise for that. What I was trying to say is that ethical relativists hold the attitude that "the end justifies the means". Now, how can anyone agree that this is a moral attitude? It's like Munira has said, simply labeling a way of life "religion" doesn't necessarily make it ethical at all. Often people use religion to cloak their ulterior motives. What we're discussing here is mainly our views, as Muslims, of where Islam stands in the midst of all this.
right on the mark flynn!
back to flynn's comment about 'Agnostics,' my response needs correction. It should be: Agnostics wouldn't be included with 'relitivists' if they believe (whateva God) prescribes ethical guidlines. But if they believe in a God far removed from the affairs of man, a God who leaves it to humans to determin their own ethics, then they would fall in the 'relativist' grp/side.
Ok, I get what you are trying to say- but you have to realise that the people who wrote the article were right in some ways- in many cases religion and ethics seem to be world's apart. It is also true that many Muslims who claim to be religious are not ethical--for instance they believe in equality but wouldn't hesitate to treat those they view as being beneath them in a most despicable manner! Unfortunately this is the reality- a reality we cannot deny! You may say that Islam is intrinsically ethical (it's true!) but it's also true that it often doesn't seem that way- and the fault doesn't always lie at the feet of the media--the fault lies with the Muslims! The other thing is that we have to think about what ethics is- I mean is what you think of as being "ethical"- the same as what I think of "ethical" as being? Of course there maybe a difference in our perceptions--so the authors' view of ethics and what constitutes it maybe vastly different from yours and that's why they don't see that religion is ethical if implemented in the correct way!Sorry about the "essay" I seemed to have written here...but hope you understood what I'm trying to say!
Post a Comment
<< Home
10 Comments:
Unfortunately, I'd say that the opinion of the intellectual majority lies with ethical relativism.
absolutely and some other identification labels for these people may be athiests, leftists, radicalists, evolutionists, communists....flynn pls supplement...
Agnostics? Or are they excluded because they DO believe in a Divine Being, but not any in particular?
i think agnostics would be included too if they believe that God prescribed ethical guidlines
People...at least these "intellectuals" have ethics! What about the people without any ethics or morals whatsoever- we should be more concerned about them! And I havn't read the article yet- but it's true that religion does not always correlate with morals! I mean think of the white people in America in the 70s- they were quite religious (their version of religiousness!)but didn't hesitate to maim or even "kill" the African Americans!
Sometimes- it's better to deal with people with ethics than people who are religious!
when i speak of religion, i refer to the one true religion that is beneficial to humanity in its nature. yet ur quite right, anonymous, when you spoke of ""RELIGIOUS"" White Americans of the 70s. The simple reason for this disparity is that by messing with the Bible, they had stuffed up the morally taught by Jesus!
What I'm saying is that not only does ethics originates from religion (or some sort of value system)but also that it is the staunchest maintainer of ethical conduct! Something contrived by reason can never do that no matter what these deluded people hold.
I've used the term "religion" too loosely,here...and I guess I should apologise for that. What I was trying to say is that ethical relativists hold the attitude that "the end justifies the means". Now, how can anyone agree that this is a moral attitude?
It's like Munira has said, simply labeling a way of life "religion" doesn't necessarily make it ethical at all. Often people use religion to cloak their ulterior motives. What we're discussing here is mainly our views, as Muslims, of where Islam stands in the midst of all this.
right on the mark flynn!
back to flynn's comment about 'Agnostics,' my response needs correction. It should be: Agnostics wouldn't be included with 'relitivists' if they believe (whateva God) prescribes ethical guidlines. But if they believe in a God far removed from the affairs of man, a God who leaves it to humans to determin their own ethics, then they would fall in the 'relativist' grp/side.
Ok, I get what you are trying to say- but you have to realise that the people who wrote the article were right in some ways- in many cases religion and ethics seem to be world's apart. It is also true that many Muslims who claim to be religious are not ethical--for instance they believe in equality but wouldn't hesitate to treat those they view as being beneath them in a most despicable manner!
Unfortunately this is the reality- a reality we cannot deny! You may say that Islam is intrinsically ethical (it's true!) but it's also true that it often doesn't seem that way- and the fault doesn't always lie at the feet of the media--the fault lies with the Muslims!
The other thing is that we have to think about what ethics is- I mean is what you think of as being "ethical"- the same as what I think of "ethical" as being? Of course there maybe a difference in our perceptions--so the authors' view of ethics and what constitutes it maybe vastly different from yours and that's why they don't see that religion is ethical if implemented in the correct way!
Sorry about the "essay" I seemed to have written here...but hope you understood what I'm trying to say!
Post a Comment
<< Home