What Do You Think of This Doctrine?
I humbly propose this doctrine for everyone, religious or not, to follow:
No physical misdeed can have a metaphysical justification
First, the argument:
The certitude of a premise is of course logically significant. Therefore, the unknowability of a divine source of morality is ethically significant. This is fairly obvious, yet too many individuals and organizations do not act upon it. MostMany religious systems involve morality and a basis for that morality that is unknowable. Now, this doctrine I have here is insufficient because in reality these myths are invented post ex-facto and therefore the true origins of the morals must be sufficiently researched. However, this snappy phrase is a good starting point to suggest a wide range of ideas… Also, it may be used if one is to give religious systems the benefit of the doubt that the supernatural they invoke is the source of the morality, if it is a fact.
Anyway, this has always been one of my primary arguments against missionaries. They are doing something that would be beneficial if their dogma was correct, but neutral (best case scenario) to terrible if their premise is wrong. Many religious organizations might have come to this realization themselves… See this interfaith conference on the issue. It would just be awesome if those Mormon missionaries in Japan stopped preaching Mormonism and started preaching the gospel of “eat brown rice! it’ll cure your constipation.”
This is the end of “God and Morality Week”, a straight-jacket premise that I got bored with the second day. Tomorrow’s post will be another idea I have that just so happens to be a good argument against missionaries. How is that for a segue?
Tags: ethics, morals, unknowable