Memory deletion drug...

[Pop]

Humanists act in an ethical manner not because of some mythical afterlife punishment, but because they believe in it. In fact, you could argue that it is a weaker form of ethics that requires a punishment: people don't really want to act ethically, and wouldn't, if they didn't think they would be punished for not acting so.

Is that really the case? Consider Glaucon's "Gyges ring" dilemma. We might assume that most people wouldn't do the wrong thing if no consequences would ever befall them, but it's not unreasonable to believe that most people, if they were never held accountable for their actions, would err in many situations. In this example, if there was indeed a God that judged him by his actions after his life, and this was readily accepted, the rogue would not rape or kill even if he could get away with it. He couldn't get away with it. Humanism creates no such imperative, it has no such teeth.

 

Kant had to include a God in his moral calculus to make it workable. When one refuses or is incapable of comprehending a metaphysical justification for the permissibility or prohibition of an action, and no physical prohibition is implemented (ie an action is wrong but there are no definite negative personal consequences) imperatives can't reasonably exist. A consequence must be present to deter those would act in spite of our moral judgements. We can say that killing is wrong, but saying it isn't enough, and there are examples of people getting away with murder just as there are examples of people reaping the consequences of their actions.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Pop

[Mortis Nai]

That is only if you consider Rape, Murder, Assault, Theft and other acts as "Wrong."

 

There wrong because there is a perceived punishment, but we do not act out of love for our fellow "Man" but rather out of fear of negative consequences for our actions.

 

That is not Morality, that is Control through Fear.

 

Which is exactly what the point that our Society is based upon.

 

When is it perfectly acceptable to go out and Commit Genocide? When we make up a reason that explains it all away and makes it a positive thing... Killing the evil "Jew", spreading Christianity, The End of Communism, "Liberating" a country and "Imposing Democracy."

 

Mankind commits the greatest atrocities when it is allowed to invent excuses and loopholes to indulge its more base instincts.

 

If our Moral compass was built from a desire of survival and advancement, rather than out of fear of repercussions, we would not be able to delude ourselves or others to such an extent to allow such things to happen.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[metadigital]

As Mortis quite rightly said, a metaphysical judge is merely a control mechanism of fear.

 

As for Glaucon (ah, the anecdote as argument: gotta love it), I'll see your Gyges Ring and raise you a Cincinnatus, the Roman General who acted asbsolute dictator of the Roman Empire for sixteen days, before retiring to his farm again, and then taking up the mantle of dictator again to put down a revolt and retire AGAIN.

 

It seems to me that your "simple" shepherd's story is far from it; there are many complexities, such as the behaviour of the King (and Queen) and the plight of a shepherd in that society. (Aside: what sort of queen would collude with some dirty shepherd who just happened to have a magic ring? Quite an infantile treatment of marriage and the usual demotion of a female character in "of their time" literature. I'd expect my wife to act towards me as I would to her: with respect and love.)

 

You are just citing Adler (struggle for power is the root of all problems).