Religious ethics are commonly dismissed by philosophical writers as unworthy of consideration, because they rely on divine authority, and are thus non-rational. In this article, I challenge the idea, by comparative examination of the underlying notions of what makes ethical theories function, as well as the structure of ethical theories.
Even in this age of “unique” individuals, the problems noted back as far as 1500 BC (or earlier) continue to plague us as a society. Blind following necessitates the surrender of reason, and thus negates our humanity, as we try to fit into our surroundings.
Being able to differentiate between reaction and response in arguments is generally the difference between winning and losing.
Context lets us read charitably. Reading charitably keeps us from becoming trolls, through decontextualization. We consider three examples of decontextualization, dealing with history, science, and cyber security – and how simple knowledge of context discredits the claims entirely.