Morals vs. Ethics

[malthaussen]

21. Indeed, and there are those whose religious dedication...

... would find your "ethical smorgasbord" (I forget who originated that one, "buffet" would do, too) to be the most immoral thing of all, which is irony if you like. I've spent way too much time reading tedious diatribes by religious authority figures, who would find the concept of an individual setting himself up as the arbitor of right and wrong (even for himself, or should I say "especially?&quot , and relying on the use of his "reason" to address such questions, the greatest anathema of all. And I don't think that idea has completely fallen out of favor. Humanists are still in bad odor with fundamentalist types, and probably always will be, since the one relies on reason and the other, faith.

My own observation has shown that people who spend time thinking about ethics tend to act, overall, more "morally" than those who rely on authority for guidance. However, for those who can't be bothered to think much about ethics, authority does serve, to a greater or lesser extent, as a governor on their actions. This is why I cannot, ultimately, condemn religion out of hand. The Enlightenment idea that education and leisure would lead to a better class of human seems to have been rather more optimistic than was expected. Although we must also ask ourselves how much of our current state is due to men of ill-will securing the reins of government and controlling the flow of ideas. But then again, the Truth is Out There, so ultimately some degree of responsibility for lax ethics (or morals) must devolve on the laziness or disinterest of the individual. Religion has always served as a club to keep men in line, and while the use of this club has been of obvious benefit to its wielders, it must also be confessed that it has been of some benefit to those of us who've had to dodge it.

-- Mal