I really need to be doing things...

[avevale_intelligencer]

...but I can't let this go. Someone (whom I won't name because I don't know if they want their LJ and FB identities linked) just quoted on Facebook:

"Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Religon is doing whatever you are told no matter what is right."

As an example of the statement that sounds good without at any point touching on truth, I don't think that can be bettered, and it shows up how insidiously persuasive a nice jingly Wildean paradox can be--I almost found myself nodding sagely at it for a second. But good grief, morality is *all about* what we're told--morality is tribal. And as for the stupid, facile old canard about religion being mindless obedience, I don't even need to bother refuting that, do I? I'm sure I've done it before, anyway, and I haven't got the spare computer time right now.

So, let's compose some nice jingly Wildean paradoxes.

"Bacon and eggs are tasty without being healthy. Muesli is healthy without being tasty."

See how it works? You have a try. See how convincing you can make any old rubbish just by balancing two phrases one against the other.

I'll check back tonight. I may award points.

Comments

[keristor.livejournal.com]

As I said in another thread, there is no agreement on what the terms mean. I use 'morality' to mean the (possibly local or individual) concensus opinion of correct and incorrect actions, and 'ethics' for absolutes which any rational observer will agree (if you waste resources, you won't have them later when needed; unnecessary killing (and hurting) of others is bad, etc.). But some people reverse the definitions, or don't see any difference, or something different from any of those.

The only way to communicate on that subject is to do a Humpty Dumpty and define the terms as you use them, and then hope that either everyone will agree for the length of the discussion or that they will at least remember how you use them.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Somewhere back in the distant past I tried to claim there were "absolutes on which any rational observer will agree" and got stomped on for moral absolutism. I think I may also have said "well, yes, all right, maybe there aren't" and got stomped on for moral relativism. I may not know much about morality, but I know when I'm getting stomped on. Which is why this post was about composing Wildean paradoxes. Somewhere back in the distant past. *sigh*