VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:08:51 09/21/02 Sat
Author: Grumpy²
Author Host/IP: 155-41.poccpe.cableone.net / 24.116.155.41
Subject: Ethics East and West

The fact that our ethical systems function as well as they do and as poorly as they do is a tribute to and a condemnation of humanity. Socrates (469-399 BCE) purportedly created the science of ethics, but that's an unprovable claim, just as so many other claims about creations are unprovable. Confucius (551-479 BCE) did not approach morality through the same door, but it's hard to fault his prescriptions. Tao (Lao Tze 604-521 BCE) also explores these questions, and is much older. Whether ethics is properly described as a science is debatable, I think. Questions that rely solely on human reason for their resolution, without independent empirical facts to verify claims made for one side are the other stand on very weak ground in that respect. Are ethics innate, or knowledge? was the question that occupied Socrates, a question that seemingly was of little import to Eastern philosophy, and seems to me to be of little import also, in the absence of unarguable standards and principles, and I mean unarguable in the sense that no one now believes that the world is supported by "turtles all the way down". Philosophy has made little progress since Socrates' day in answering the questions that occupied him and his contemporaries; he could join in the discussions of ethical issues in any classroom around the world and be just as relevant as he was in his day, whereas the natural sciences he explored have utterly passed him by, and he would be at a loss to answer questions that junior high school students deal with routinely.

"Rén, "benevolence, charity, humanity, love," kindness. The fundamental virtue of Confucianism. Confucius defines it as "Aì rén," "love others."
[Analects XII:22]"
"Yì, "right conduct, morality, duty to one's neighbor," righteousness."
"Lì, "profit, gain, advantage": NOT a proper motive for actions affecting others. The idea that profit is the source of temptation to do wrong is the Confucian ground of the later official disparagment of commerce and industry."
"Li³, "propriety, good manners, politeness, ceremony, worship." Xiào, "to honor one's parents," filial piety."
"Yì may be broken down [Analects IV:15] into: zhong1, doing one's best, conscientiousness, "loyalty" [1]; and shù, "reciprocity," altruism, consideration for others, "what you don't want yourself, don't do to others" [Analects XV:24 or 23]."

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.