Contest #3: "I believe..." (essay)

Chris OConnor

Contest #3: "I believe..."

This essay or writing contest runs for the full two months of August and September 2008. So you have two entire months to compose this essay and submit it via this thread OR by email. Yes, just post your completed essay right here in this thread or email it to chris@booktalk.org or tara@booktalk.org. Include a title for your essay. "I believe..." can be your title, but it doesn't have to be. It is merely provided as the essay topic and not as the required essay title.

• 250 - 750 words
• Your own personal writing
• Must have never been published previously
• Proofread and spell check before submitting

Tell us what you believe in. Do not feel restricted to any particular subject or topic. This is not an essay about your religious beliefs, although you are welcome to share them. This is not about your political or philosophical worldview, but maybe that would make for an interesting piece.

Write about whatever you want. What do you believe?

Write your own essay and don't even think about plagiarizing. If you write quality posts on BookTalk.org this should be easy and fun for you. Don't allow the word "essay" to throw you. An intelligent post on our forums, if free from slang, profanity, spelling errors, grammatical errors and smilies is no different than what is expected of you for this contest.

What can I win?

We'll be giving away a quantity of free books from our "Books Available as Awards" thread.

http://www.booktalk.org/books-given-away-as-awards-t4664.html

How many people will win?

How many winners we'll have depends on how many members contribute quality essays.

Who picks the winner or winners?

Ultimately, I reserve the right to select the winners, but I'll be asking the entire community for feedback. Your opinion will matter. If you are nervous about being judged by your peers then email your completed and proofread essay and I will post it here in this thread without your name attached. Or, if you prefer your essay critiqued privately just email and tell us to review it in private.

How do I participate?

Just start working on your essay. It would be very helpful if you made a brief post here in this thread stating your intention of participating. The more participants the better. And we have plenty of free books to go around. Smile

IMPORTANT TERMS:

This contest is open only to ALL BookTalk.org members.

By submitting your essay you are agreeing to allow BookTalk.org to use your essay, in part or in whole, however deemed appropriate. BookTalk.org will probably eventually feature such winning essays on static pages, as opposed to merely as forum posts. The author of the essay will receive proper credit for their writing by means of including their BookTalk.org username OR their real name above or below the body of the essay. How you wish to be recognized is up to you.

Quality essays may be submitted to free article sites. If the article sites allow BookTalk.org to attach your name or username we'll attach it. The benefit of submitting quality essays to free article sites is that those articles can be reposted on hundreds or even thousands of other sites, and each site must include a Bio at the bottom, which would include a link to BookTalk.org. So participating in this essay contest can be of great benefit to BookTalk.org, which in turn improves the quality of your experience here.

Stephen Uhl · Eligible to vote! Joined: 04 Nov 2007 Posts: 10 Gender:

Contest #3: "I believe..."

HONEST ETHICS FOR ALL
by Stephen Uhl, Ph.D., www.imagineNOsuperstition.com
When I was in the seminary studying moral theology, we were taught that the end does not justify the means. Then when I had grown beyond what I was taught in the seminary, when I left the Catholic priesthood, my younger brother confronted me and ask seriously, 'How can you be a good man if you don't believe in God?'

Well, I think it is high time to get some simple and lasting principles of morality clarified. For, let's face it, the conventional writings and sermons on ethical living generally try to tell us how the writer or preacher says WE should live rather than how THEY themselves actually do live.

It helps to understand the very etymology of the words 'morality' and 'ethics'. "Morality" comes from the Latin word for custom (mos) and "ethics" comes the Greek word for custom (ethos). So the phrase "customary morality" is a self-repetitive tautology as is the phrase "customary ethics." So custom is very important, for that is what society has decided really works. But customs change as society becomes smarter; so slavery and race prejudice are now immoral, and it's no longer a serious sin for Catholics to eat meat on Friday.

HOW DO WE DECIDE TO SET ASIDE CUSTOM OR PUSH THE ENVELOPE?
Of course, I must always follow my conscience, whether or not my conscience agrees with custom. And what is conscience? It is properly defined by the old moral theologians as "right reason deciding about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of this action here and now for me." My clear reason, not my feelings, not the ancient authority of preacher or pope--rather my own highest power, my reason, is what makes the responsible decision. So the reasonable question to ask of myself is: "Is this action worth what it will cost?" In other words, does the end justify the means? is my goal worth the cost of the means of getting there? If the end is worth the cost of the means, then the end does, indeed, justify the means. A lot of people agree that the Iraq war was immoral because, even if it were won, it would be a Pyrric victory, immorally expensive in the achievement of its goal. Is there a reasonable balance between the goal and the cost?

Is it moral to spend two million of limited health care dollars to save a two ounce preemie fetus? Is it moral or immoral to spend like amounts in prolonging the life of a Terri Schiavo or Grandpa Vegetable? Does the end justify the means here? Is there a reasonable balance between the goal and the cost of achieving it? If objective reason reigns, the moral decision is not so difficult. But when personal emotions and subjective faiths override reason as to the proper balance between means and end, immoral conclusions readily result.

It is most helpful to admit in practice that reason is your highest power, your highest authority; and following it conscientiously demands acting on evidence and riding down emotions and extrasensory insights, while wisely consulting the reasonable wisdom of society and its moral or customary marketplace of reasonable ideas.

Does the goal of probably learning how to prevent and cure serious diseases justify destroying a few human cells growing in a petri dish? For reasonable people the answer is an easy and obvious 'yes'; of course, for those who hold (beyond evidence) that those few cells in the petri dish are a very, very valuable human being, that answer is not so easy. Is aborting an unformed or malformed fetus justified by the goal of the convenience or health of the mother?

No one and no legislature is wise enough to lay down specific, binding and unbending guidelines to cover all the changing circumstances in real life. But the general guideline must be reason weighing the value of the goal or end against the cost or means of achieving that goal. This is reasonable; this is conscientious; this is moral behavior. So this is good for me and all of you, my planetary neighbors.
# # #

gig · Eligible to vote! Joined: 24 Jul 2008 Posts: 11 Gender:

So in essence you bring to my mind a few coined phrases that are hard to forget and in some lives have become tenets that those lives have adopted both in spirituality and mortality....and I quote.."don't do as I do ...do as I say" and "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"....and "follow your heart"....

gig · Eligible to vote! Joined: 24 Jul 2008 Posts: 11 Gender:

I meant morality...not mortality....my bad for not proofreading.

hegel1066

(I know that this is for contest entries, but I wanted to ask the poster a few questions. I don't know if this is against the rules and "clogs up" the smooth flow of essay posts. If it does, will Chris or Ophelia or someone else please tell me and I will automatically delete this post.)

Stephen -

Thank you for your thought-provoking contribution to the topic. It is interesting to know that we have a former seminarian in our midst, as I flirted with the idea once myself. I still haven't ruled it out completely.

The jist of your essay seems to say that ethics, correctly derived, will always be derived from the highest of human faculties - namely that of reason. This sounds wonderful. But consider the following: Two people - two rational, reasonable people - can agree to disagree on any variety of moral issues. Your post seems to assume that rational inquiry will result in similar, if not the same, intellectual decision-making. This ignores one of the main problems of a thinker with whom I'm sure you are familiar with - Jurgen Habermas. Habermas states that communicative theory and communicative ethics don't assume anything; that "discourse" is merely a historical extension of the Enlightenment. Reason and rationality are why we can have discourse in the first place, *not* why we can come to an agreement on a given moral issue.

I think you even sense this yourself in your own post when you end with saying, "No one and no legislature is wise enough to lay down specific, binding and unbending guidelines to cover all the changing circumstances in real life." And in this, you could not be more correct. Reason, in all its glory, is no substitute for sophia (wisdom). Even the likes of Aristotle admits that prudence or practical wisdom (phronesis) is not enough to pursue the good life; rather, eudaimonia is the result of many virtues working in concert.

Again, thank you for your compelling post. Peace be with you, and I look forward to your response, should I be lucky enough to receive one.

-John (hegel1066)

Stephen Uhl · Eligible to vote! Joined: 04 Nov 2007 Posts: 10 Gender:

John, your quote from Habermas is clearly in pretty complete congruence with my position.

As to your suggestion that reason, man's highest power, might not be suficient for reliable ethics, a couple of further thoughts might help. First of all, wisdom comes from rational analysis of experience. We have come a long way beyond the great Aristotle, both in re our experience and our ability to analyze it from a global perspective. Secondly, in your reference to my statement that 'no person and no legislature is wise enough to give specific and binding ethical ...' you seem to overlook the word "specific," for in specific, practical details, it is the individual's conscience (reason) that remains the final guideline.

As to your example of two reasonable people agreeing to disagree, it would appear that the point(s) of their disagreement must not be very important from a real or practical viewpoint.

If you go to my website or read my book, Imagine No Superstition, I think you will enjoy much further agreement; or should we just agree to disagree?

Steve

hegel1066 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject:

Stephen -

Your qualifications to what you originally said make much more sense now upon reflection. (Even though I still tend to run to Aristotle for ethics.) Despite what you say, I don't think we've come that far since Aristotle - even millenia have passed in the interim.

One more question, though: You say "As to your example of two reasonable people agreeing to disagree, it would appear that the point(s) of their disagreement must not be very important from a real or practical viewpoint." Do you mean to say, then, that if two people come to a disagreement on a particular moral matter (or, rather, any matter at all), either one must be irrational or the matter at hand must be of little or no consequence?

Somehow, I have the feeling this is *not* what you're saying ... but just in case it is: I know several people with whom I disagree on the subject of abortion, for example. And gay marriage. Does this mean one of us is irrational? (Surely you wouldn't argue that these are moral trifles.)

Thank you for your patience.

-John (hegel1066)

Stephen Uhl · Eligible to vote! Joined: 04 Nov 2007 Posts: 10 Gender:

John, it is, indeed, a small matter that you think one way on abortion and I think another as long as you really do agree to disagree in such a way that you do not try to foist your value or belief onto me or my life. The same holds in re homophobia.

And, just by the way, to help you not overestimate the seriousness of abortion in most cases, Mother Nature aborts well over 50% of human pregnancies.

Enjoy being rationally free; 'this above all, to thine own (rational) self be true; then it shall follow as night follows day, thou shalt not be false to anyone.''

Steve

hegel1066 · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject:

Stephen -

Oh, I know the fact that two random people happen to agree or disagree - but the subject of agreement or disagreement - i.e., the moral issue at hand - THAT'S not minor. That's what I was trying to say.

And, yes, mother nature does a lot of aborting. But we both know those weren't the cases I was talking about. I was strictly referring to those in which human decision-making played a part.

But enough about this. I think I understand what you mean now.

I wanted to ask you something else, though: Since you've left the seminary and seminarian studies, have your religious beliefs drastically changed? Do you still believe in God? Are you now an atheist, or an agnostic? Whence your paean to human reason? Do you think that the provenance of reason needs a "higher explanation," or do you think it can be explained with evolutionary psychology?

And if your religious beliefs have drastically changed, what caused it? Was it one happening/thing, or did it occur over a period of several years? Share with me all you can bear to repeat.

Thanks again,
-John (hegel1066)

tarav · Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:14 am Post subject:

Stephen, thank you for posting your entry. I love that you framed your beliefs with the idea of ethics. I enjoyed reading it and agree with much of what you wrote.


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT