
Telling Right From Wrong - J3L2404
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/magazine/26Foot-t.html?src=twr
======
jackfoxy
I have heard (but never confirmed for myself) that the term translated as
_sin_ into English from the Torah has more of the sense _to miss the mark_ in
the original Hebrew.

It appears from this summary this atheist has replaced traditional Western
religious-based morality with the very same moral system, _sans_ God.

~~~
alexandros
The word you are looking for is the Greek "hamartia" (αμαρτία) [1]. This does
make the biblical association you're trying to set up significantly less
tenable.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartia>

~~~
wolfhumble
Well, the hebrew word: Torah, means "instruction" (תּוֹרָה). So I guess that
means if you forget the instruction, you are certainly missing the mark.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah>

------
stjohn
The link doesn't work for me, but this does:
[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/26/magazine/2010l...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/26/magazine/2010lives.html#view=philippa_foot)

------
jessriedel
This is still a distinctly minority view among moral philosophers. I believe
(I can't find the survey at the moment) that most think the is-ought gap is
fundamental.

~~~
Locke1689
That's not completely true. You have to separate universal moral framework
from a relativist system. In this case is-ought doesn't come in to play (as
Hume himself acknowledged in the answer to the question of induction). I'm
more focused in epistemology myself but I also happen to be a Hume nut.

~~~
jessriedel
Maybe you can educate me here. Once you've crossed the relativist bridge,
doesn't the study of morality just become anthropology, not philosophy?

~~~
Locke1689
Sure. Nietzsche was one of the first to approach this subject. In "The Gay
Science" he built out the ethical self-actualization as a rejection of
nihilism. Later existentialists (Camus, Sarte) did the same thing but
attempted to connect it on a more human basis with freedom. Some even
approached the same question with a theological perspective (Kierkegaard). The
phenomenologists wanted us to throw everything we thought we knew about
existence and morality out the window, so I'm not even going to touch on
Hiedegger et al (if you're interested you can slave your way through Zein und
Seit yourself). The Neo-Kantians endeavor to correct the mistakes Kant made
following the CI and deal more with a "personal" CI, if you will (quite
complicated, can't explain in a few sentences).

Overall, I think that's a pretty good reading list to start with. You should
probably read this[1] as an introduction, as well as [2]. Remember though:
philosophy almost never comes up with correct answers, it only shows which
answers are almost definitely wrong.

[1] <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/> [2]
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/>

------
joe_the_user
Building a plausible a-religious moral philosophy always reminded me of
building a plausible perpetual motion machine.

How can you conceal the fact that you're trying to extract a conclusion from a
system that doesn't have a premise? Well, there are indeed lots of methods of
misdirection.

The last try at building a perpetual motion machine that I remember involved
claiming to have a device for "amplifying power" but not being able to hook
the device to itself "somehow". Made the system harder to disprove.

~~~
rue
A religious basis doesn't make a moral philosophy any more reasonable (you
can't argue _real_ divine inspiration without proof). I am not sure if you
even intended to imply that, of course.

A "scientific" moral philosophy is still rooted in some fundamental non-
objective rule, of course, but that's not necessarily a bad thing nor does it
affect its plausibility.

One fundamental is that humans are separated from other animals[1] not just by
self-awareness but also awareness of others — and the resulting effect of
empathy. With this information, it can be argued that this ability bestows an
obligation to care for others. A consistent moral philosophy can be built from
that and other observations.

[1] This could apply to equal or lesser degree to some other species but we
have no way of verifying it currently.

------
Avshalom
right: ->

wrong: 1=2

