From: "Andrew Bromage" <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion
Subject: Re: Childhood influences


> G'day all.
>
> "D.Castles" <> writes:
>
> >Sorry for butting in
> >What purpose is a concept of "morals" if it doesn't relate to the social
and
> >natural environment?
> >If you were alone,a million miles out in space with no possible contact
> >ever with any living thing could you perform an  immoral act?
>
> Good question, but slightly hypothetical. :-)
>
> How about this: Jesus said to forgive those who wrong you.  What's the
> purpose of forgiving someone who will not accept forgiveness?  It won't
> help your relationship with that person.  Unless you brag or whinge about
> it, it won't help your relationship with anyone else, either.  So what's
> the point?
>
> Well, it's to help yourself.  Forgiving someone changes you.  It means
> that you will no longer be ruled/obsessed/whatever by the memory of
> that wrong.
>
> Now you could argue that this is abour your social relationships.  If
> you are better, you will (indirectly) act towards others better.  Call
> it "karma" if you will.  Well, that is possibly true.  However, the
> Christian take on it is that being "moral" (and I use this word
> advisedly as it does not appear in the Bible) makes _you_ better.  It's
> called "sanctification", and it is usually described as "becoming more
> like Jesus".
>
> Note: This is not the same thing as those WWJD stickers.  What Would
> Jesus Do?  He'd miraculously cure people of their illnesses and then
> die and come back to life a few days later.  So I guess I have a bit of
> work ahead of me, no? :-)
>
> BTW, there was a really good article on K5 some time ago which gave
> an introduction to moral philosophy:
>
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/11/6/194745/177
>
> Briefly, there are three main groundings for moral theory:
> individualistic (individuals have rights, the "right" course of action
> determined by weighing the rights of the various parties), utilitarian
> (things should be done for "the greater good", harm minimised and so on)
> and deontological (individuals have responsibilities, "right" course of
> action determined by examining what your duties are).
>
> I think that most of us are some combination of the above.  There are
> some situations in which we look at who has what rights, there are some
> situations in which we look at the "greater good" and there are some
> situations in which we say that "it's just the right thing to do".
> IMO, so we should.  Even philosophers who concentrate on one basis for
> moral philosophy will usually give a nod to others when necessary.
>
> Now getting back to your hypothetical about the person alone on some
> other planet: If the only entity with rights is you, or if society
> consists entirely of you, obviously you can't construct a system of
> morals based on individualism or utilitarianism, except to the extent
> that you should act to preserve yourself.  The point, though, is to
> realise that this is not the only way to construct morals.
>
> Now aren't you glad you asked?
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew Bromage