This is beginning to tread into Humanism territory

who does?

The law is the minimum bar for ethical behavior

laws differ from culture to culture

and we're back to moral relativism

Sort of but not really

unless u think all cultures are equal

What is good in Man's mind changes and is usuitable to be a useful stance of morals/ethics

^

Ethical behavior over all is when you multiply the good while avpiding the bad as it applies to everyone

Its suppose to be farily black and whit unless you use utilitarianism

But we've been told by God that our "Good" is but mere filthy rags

Which allows for less unsavory things to be done in pursuit of a larger good

what is ur point exactly? there's no one to enforce it, there's no one to prevent unethical behavior and that man can justify it trough the moral relativism that he was good and his group is now better off

while commiting some bad

That if taught uniformly it doesnt allow for moral relativism

moral subjectivism is unavoidable if u reject God. By rejecting him you reject the objective truth

Virtue is one of the most revered words in all languages. It is associated with character, good judgment, and ethical decision making. Moral virtue can be defined as “the habit of right desire” or the disposition to make right choices.1

you're essentially advocating for another dogma

>that if taugh uniformly

why bother replacing religion then

just leave it as it is, achieves the same thing

The ultimate good is happiness, according to Aristotle. All the other real goods we pursue are for the sake of happiness (or eudaimonia), which is the life that is most desirable (i.e., much more than contentment or joy commonly associated with the term happiness). We choose happiness not for anything other than itself. Aristotle believed further that happiness is the final good, the ultimate end of all desire achieved at the end of a complete life. Therefore, happiness cannot be experienced at a given moment; it can be achieved only through virtuous action (not thought alone).

Except it isnt a religion. Its a common ground sharable by all peoples without the baggage of enforcing a belief system on others while also appealing to atheist as it examines real people and their effects on on another.

You can teach it to religion and not contradict their beliefs and it escapes skepticism by athiests by being more scientific and not based on the imaginary at all.

>The other real goods we pursue are for the sake of happiness.

That is still advocating Moral Relativism. So if I go kill someone because it makes me happy it is therefore "good."

No that is tou twisting it

This is an ideal and not something that is grounded in reality.
Again, I'm telling you Aristotle was just a man with plenty of critique behind his back. God is an ultimate authority and such a pursuit can only be commanded by an ultimate authority.

You cant kill someone because that isnt a real good

Real goods being described as those things you meed to live

you can justify and rationalise it, because fuck it a man can be convinced that you did good by killing that man

But if Moralism and Ethics are defined by man what makes murder bad? The animal kingdom kills their own children and they don't care.

Whether or not it was needed in order to preserve a real good

If they arent imeadiately threatening your real goods such an action is completely innappropriate and not supported at all

So you advocate for killing your own child of it threatens the "real good?"

What man thinks is "Good" is irrelevant to God. God is more concerned with Righteousness.

in ethics defined by man, murder can be justified

in front of a God it can't

If your child is threatening your health or shelter and the only way to stop them is via death it might be justified

But in that case it isnt murder its self defense and manslaughter

this is what I'm talking about

You kind of justified our point

>perfectly fine with child killing as long as they endager you in some way

Yes and no

Unless you are referring to capital punishment

Where the child has done grave wrong by the law

Killing because you want to is different than killing because you are forced to or die

you're still not allowed to judge him, only God is

I mean u can put him in jail but not execute him

The spirit can only be Judged by God, but we can judge the actions of said person

agreed

Though we are told "by their fruits you shall know them" so we can usually figure out if someone is saved or not by just watching them act.

I think he was referring to abortion

The justification would only come from reflection of the situation you were in however.

Abortion is abhorrent in the eyes of God. The Bible states the God HATES hands quick to shed innocent blood.

You cant really justify stuff in the moment

According to ethics you could abort

Provided the complications threatened the mothers life

But all that is going into Utilitarianism

Human concept of ethics is irrelevant to God. You should only be following his law when it comes to moral code.

If he has a law he should enforce it

Otherwise ethics is the best we can do

Enforce his Moral Law? He already said that it is man's choice

I would doubt the moral code of any mother who decides to end the life of her child to save her own

^^^

The case we used in class was that the baby had a complication where it would not survive birth and it put the mother in serious danger

now do you see how far we have fallen? when abortion is made for economic reasons? how far the ethics of man can justify things

But abortion because youre a whore is generally not supported

the example you provided still doesn't justify murdering the child

if it has a chance then it does

No chance

It would be born braindead

And then likely kill the mother

its a hypothetical and very unlikely to happen

True

But it is an exception

a hyptothetical like that shouldn't be a basis on policy on abortion

And it should be allowed for in the policy

I disagree

Telling the mother you gotta die its the policy is just wrong

doctors need to be better, equipment needs to be better

to save these lives from unnecessary death

Until they are you have to account for them not being better

We are quite a long way from curing brain death

its a policy that allows doctors to stagnate and not improve

And saying someone has to die because we should be better is misguided

>just kill off the child

The child in that scenario is dead

It would not be able to eat without machines doing it for it

if its born dead then its dead. they can focus on saving the mother

If its already dead there is no reason to go through with birthing

then its not abortion

Science is along enough to know the status of the infane without going that far

its miscarriage

And this is still covered by abortion

Because the body is living

There is just no chance of survival without life support

Permanent life support

how many cases are like this?

seems to me like it has no basis in reality