- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thanks everyone for humoring me in applying my business ethics class to the topics that we discuss here. There is something else that I would like to share today. First is the concept of subjective morality.
Quote:“A person may be considered moral if he habitually acts in accordance with his conscience. We may speak of him as more or less moral, depending on how frequently, within tolerable levels, he acts contrary to his conscience. What we mean is that he tries to do what he thinks is right. Here, sincerity is the keynote of morality. Although each of us knows our own conscience, we do not know the conscience of others, and so we cannot be sure when they are acting in accordance with their beliefs.”
This seems to be part of what is embodied in the A of F that allows all men to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. StayLDSers can find a workable model here to use.
The next is Christian theological ethics –
Quote:“conscience is God’s word and …He communicates knowledge of right and wrong directly to His followers…In some Christian religions the interpretation is performed by the individual; in others it is performed by either the church collectively or by special persons in the church who speak authoritively about the morality of actions.”
This sounds like a standard LDS approach.
Quote:“Ever since the Greeks, some people have asked whether an action is right because God says it is, or whether God says an action is morally right because it is morally right. In the former case, God could make murder, theft, or lying moral if he choose to do so. In the latter case, He could not.”
Both of these concepts seem to have a basis in Mormonism. The BofM seems to teach of a God that perfectly walks the road of righteousness and if he were to slip one iota he would cease to be God. This implys that there are universal principles of right and wrong that God follows with exactness as a source of His power. OTOH, JS said that whatever God commands is right no matter what it is. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son and Nephi to kill Laban. In the case of Laban the spirit even gave a form of limited utilitarianism is suggesting that one man’s life was worth less than an entire nation having access to the holy writings. Utilitarianism is the type of ethical theory that argues that the action that creates the greatest good for the greatest number is the right one.
If a person refused to participate in the MMM and even worked to prevent it they could be said to be moral in that they are following their conscience (subjective morality) or because they were following the law that prohibits killing (conventional morality). Another person who participated could be called moral in that they are being obedient to a God that defines morality by his word alone (even though the actions would not be moral under any other approach). I apologize for using such an extreme example but it helps to illustrate how one can get to very different conclusions and still be using a viable approach to ethical theory.
The other point that I want to make is that all these approaches to ethical theory and MORE can be found in and defended with Mormonism – depending on the scriptures and GA quotes that you might be referencing.
As frustrating as it can be to not have clear answers on what one should do – it also allows us to choose the Ethical Theory that speaks to us most or that would do the most good for our own particular situations. This can be particularly helpful for StayLDSers that are working to stay and contrubute to the church in their own way.
P.S. This seems to also be why it can be hard to talk about “moral obligations” of the church. There may be an action that is moral (according to at one or more ethical theories) – like building soup kitchens – but that does not mean that the church is immoral if it does not choose that action.
I like how you’ve summarized these theories. I wasn’t aware of them. As with most theories, I think you have to run ethical problems through the theory, and see what it spits out in that situation. From there, you end up with some gold nuggets of insight. For example, I definitely subscribe to this philosophy. After my commitment crisis happened, I found inner peace in this approach.
Roy wrote:First is the concept of subjective morality.
“A person may be considered moral if he habitually acts in accordance with his conscience. We may speak of him as more or less moral, depending on how frequently, within tolerable levels, he acts contrary to his conscience. What we mean is that he tries to do what he thinks is right. Here, sincerity is the keynote of morality. Although each of us knows our own conscience, we do not know the conscience of others, and so we cannot be sure when they are acting in accordance with their beliefs.”
This seems to be part of what is embodied in the A of F that allows all men to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. StayLDSers can find a workable model here to use.
Quote:
The next is Christian theological ethics –“conscience is God’s word and …He communicates knowledge of right and wrong directly to His followers…In some Christian religions the interpretation is performed by the individual; in others it is performed by either the church collectively or by special persons in the church who speak authoritively about the morality of actions.” This sounds like a standard LDS approach.
“God’s Word” is tough to pin down. It’s subject to interpretation. WE know that vile, totalitarian governments have used “God’s Word” to justify atrocities. I see God’s word as an input into the person’s conscience. The individual decides if the morality of the supposed God’s word is moral, and then integrates it into his conscience. Then, subjective morality takes over.
Quote:
“Ever since the Greeks, some people have asked whether an action is right because God says it is, or whether God says an action is morally right because it is morally right. In the former case, God could make murder, theft, or lying moral if he choose to do so. In the latter case, He could not.”Again, we have a problem with pinning down what God’s word is, and whether He says something is moral because its moral, or moral because he said it. The LDS approach seems to subscribe to the latter form of morality, and also cascades it to the decrees of men on earth (that is why you have MMM). I reject both of these as absolute approaches to morality. I would consider whatever God is purported to say, and would then adopt into my conscience which personal revelation/reflection leads me to believe. Again, this is only an input into my conscience, with subjective morality reigning supreme.
Is there another kind of morality out there? One that describes the morality that a group of people dictates? Cultural morality, perhaps? (with culture meaning shared beliefs, rather than ethnic differences)? If not, I think there is a case for arguing it exists.
I would argue that subjective morality is the supreme and ultimate form of morality. After that, comes “cultura” [conventional???] morality that is imposed by a group. If you are a member of that group, there are times when you will have to abide by that morality even through your subjective morality doesn’t deem it necessary. This is to maintain acceptability within the group. as well as access to its privileges.
I would like to ask the group which form of morality you think should guide your ethical decisions?
SilentDawning wrote:Is there another kind of morality out there? One that describes the morality that a group of people dictates? Cultural morality, perhaps? (with culture meaning shared beliefs, rather than ethnic differences)? If not, I think there is a case for arguing it exists.
This seems to be describing conventional morality where one is moral because of the expectations imposed by outside forces, family, peer pressure, laws, etc.
The text also talks about Moral Pluralism which is a society where diverse approaches to morality are acceptable as long as they agree on certain basic fundamentals. The US is a moraly diverse society. People may avoid murder because it is against the law and they wish to maintain the respect of society (conventional) or because they believe God forbids it (theological) or because it violates human dignity (kantian), or because it would cause great harm and little to no good (utilitarian) – but we only require that people not murder.
This tolerance for different aprroaches allows for individuals and groups to find their own path to self-fulfillment that would not be possible in a more homogeneous society.
Quote:Postby Roy » 2014 Oct 05, 12:12
Both of these concepts seem to have a basis in Mormonism. The BofM seems to teach of a God that perfectly walks the road of righteousness and if he were to slip one iota he would cease to be God. This implys that there are universal principles of right and wrong that God follows with exactness as a source of His power. OTOH, JS said that whatever God commands is right no matter what it is. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son and Nephi to kill Laban. In the case of Laban the spirit even gave a form of limited utilitarianism is suggesting that one man’s life was worth less than an entire nation having access to the holy writings. Utilitarianism is the type of ethical theory that argues that the action that creates the greatest good for the greatest number is the right one.
I read D&C 130:20-21 to say that we & supposedly God are subject to eternal law:
Quote:D&C 130:20-21 There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world upon which all blessings are predicated, and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated”
OTOH
Quote:God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son and Nephi to kill Laban.
OTOH
Quote:If one man’s life was worth less than an entire nation having access to the holy writings, then why didn’t / doesn’t God just knock off the likes of Genghis Khan, Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, ISIS and the like?
It’s a conundrum. I love the idea philosophically that God is God because He follows eternal principles, and can’t just do what he feels like doing. But commanding Nephi to kill Laban, so a whole nation might not dwindle in unbelief, while letting countless other villains rape and pillage to their hearts content just doesn’t make sense to me.
Quote:But commanding Nephi to kill Laban, so a whole nation might not dwindle in unbelief, while letting countless other villains rape and pillage to their hearts content just doesn’t make sense to me.
Maybe Nephi thought God gave him the commandment, but . . .
I like that I have the privilege of worshiping God according to the dictates of a personal conscience that doesn’t have to attribute “commands” like that one (and Abraham with Isaac) to God.
I agree. I don’t want everything laid out for me. Consistency does not respect diversity…and we r all diverse. I would also like to see the church stop claiming it has all truth. I think it would be easier to handle if there were more frequent admissions, such as uchtdorf’s, that leaders make mistakes. Old-Timer wrote:Maybe Nephi thought God gave him the commandment, but . . . I like that I have the privilege of worshiping God according to the dictates of a personal conscience that doesn’t have to attribute “commands” like that one (and Abraham with Isaac) to God.
I like how in the recent Movie version of Noah the prophet is not given clear instructions. For some time in the movie he believes that his divine mission is to ensure that the human race does not continue. Then when he fails to kill his newborn twin grand-daughters and in the face of God’s continuing silence, he reinterprets his divine mission to the direction of replenishing the earth.
It is also possible that Nephi made some hard decisions about how to complete his father’s assignment to get the plates and then came up his own justifications.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.