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.
In his May 18 article for the RAND blog (ISIS: Weakened but Still Potent), Collin P Clarke delivers an assessment…
The recent trend of “excommunicating” people from various groups, as a rejection of their behaviors, is a bad option for several reasons. Yes, the idea that ISIS members are Muslim sounds abhorrent to Muslims, and the idea that Myanmar’s genocidal government sounds abhorrent to Buddhists. But the attempt to simply call them non-Muslim or non-Buddhists creates far more problems than it solves.
While modernity has made secularism a familiar notion – especially in academia – religion has provided the primary context of human events since before written history. When religion and religious concepts are examined critically, they can yield a great wealth of useful and interesting ideas, or at least useful warnings about what ideas lead to dead-ends and escalating problems.