Ethics (Religion)

by Carl, Sunday, October 12, 2008, 23:36 (5884 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw says morality consists in "the right of all human beings to pursue happiness in such a way that it causes minimal harm to humanity and to other forms of life".
To me, this is a definition of individual freedom rather than morality. Morality should rule out self-destructive behavior. It should also contain some encouragement to work for the betterment of society. I have written earlier of equating ethics and wisdom, so that ,for the most part, that which is unethical is also unwise. I use ethics and morality interchangeably here.
Since I believe that ethics are situational and relative to the circumstance of their application, my position will be different from that of someone who believes that there is an absolute objective standard of ethics. I would not expect to find agreement between myself and a devout Christian or Muslim on this point. We simply have to agree to disagree. And yet, we must devise a compromise standard of ethics and a punishment for infraction that we can all support as public policy, even though our personal ethics will differ.
 This is where I disagree with George, Dawkins and Austin Dacey in their confrontational approach to religion. It is not conducive to the compromise that is necessary for a smoothly functioning society. When groups seek a pure society instead of a compromise society, it is usually done at the expense of social cohesion. However, there should be some well identified market place of ideas where views are freely exchanged with passions left at the door. This would be the place for Dawkins and others to express their objections to the religions of others. 
In a compromise society, no group should expect to see only their beliefs reflected in public policy. This is the distinction between public policy and personal ethics. Such policies do not deliver society to your particular version of heaven or prevent parents from raising their children to believe things that you don't agree with. It does provide a smoothly functioning society within which you can work out your own personal salvation. 
Dhw: "Just what should we do with criminals when we've caught them? ...what punishment fits what crime? ...is justice only about punishment?"
From society's point of view, the prime purpose of justice should be deterrence of unsocial acts - to prevent repetition by the offender and discourage future offenders. A secondary purpose is vengeance for the injured so they do not seek personal vengeance.
Society must agree on a standard of behavior for its citizens and enforce that standard. An overwhelming majority (90+%) of the society must support the standard and the allotted punishment for transgression. Our current debacle on drug policy is a case in point when the standard is not supported by the masses. Punishment should be the maximum that an overwhelming majority of society can agree would not be excessive. Thus, if the masses agreed that life imprisonment is not excessive for simple murder, then that should be the sentence. However, if the mass felt that life without possibility of parole would be excessive, then parole should be allowed. And ,yes, if the overwhelming majority of society agreed that defaming the Prophet justified the death penalty, such should be the case. The small minority with an overpowering urge to defame the prophet should be aware and hold their tongue.