Where atheists and theists may find common ground for discussion

[Thats my opinion]

40. Thanks for the helpful Kurtz article.

In ethics there seems to be two rather related approaches.

First, there is the "deontological" approach, which is what Kurtz often takes. This view springs from Kant's "Categorical imperative" --do what you would want universally done. There is something written in the nature of things that defines what is right. In the most conservative aspect of this system, it means obedience to law, rules, authority. We simply know what is right because that is the way nature is constructed.

The second basic approach is "consequentialism." What is right produces right outcomes. Utilitarianism and the pragmatists focus on results. It is right because it makes society safer, for instance.

A healthy society, growing out of a healthy point of view, encompasses both. Religion often runs off the tracks when it only focuses on the first. But the second can be equally dangerous. Wars are often justified by a hoped for peaceful outcome--or just victory-- as the goal. Dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima was justified because it saved an invasion.

Many of our most difficult moral problems lie in the balance between these two things. When religion has been helpful it has observed this balance. Kurtz reliance on the transcendentalists makes his case, and it is well worth our attention. This discussion is a fruitful place where I believe secular humanists and liberal religion may provide a helpful conversation.

Regarding the paper I promised by DU letter. I am giving a version of it before a theological conference this afternoon, and another version tomorrow morning at another body. And then I'm off next week for the
Spring meeting of what most people recognize as the Jesus Seminar (The Westar Institute). When I return I hope to have a version suitable go send out, and will get it to you..

And thanks for the reminder about sharp edges.