The rules of engagement

Posted by D J Lancaster on June 23, 1998 at 19:22:14:

In Reply to: Ethics posted by rpcman on June 23, 1998 at 14:26:01:

: I didn't say atheists don't want to be ethical.

: What are you implying by stating that "The atheist doesn't want the added complication of a personal God, who demands ethical behavior" then?

: y'all don't like the idea of a Rule Maker/Enforcer.

: It isn't the idea that I don't necessarily like. It is the complete lack of evidence for such a creature and the history of those who have pretended to speak for this enforcer that I look at.

: I also wonder how an atheist can define ethical behavior.

: For starters click here.

: So why don't you turn your skeptical eye on macroevolution...

: I have. The evidence all points to macroevolution being very factual. If you have a better theory that actually fits the evidence, please present it.

****

A Rule Maker/Enforcer reality works well and is sustainable as long as everyone is clear on the terms of engagement. Things begin to fall apart in this type of model for order when the terms of engagement are not carried forward consistently throughout the region to be governed. Since the rules of God very from continent to continent, country to country, church to church, not to mention the differences in national domestic, social and political law there can be no clear agreed upon approach for everyone.

The only possibility for a demonstration of some higher ethic is when members from different religious, scientific and national backgrounds meet; Then there can be a demonstration of higher ethics established in the manner of communication and accommodation extended to meet requested and specific needs from one another.

For example, say I have store. Within a short period of time, an atheist, agnostic, believer, and a mixer come to buy from me. In this case I'll say I'm an atheist. My only possibility to compliment the terms of my engagement is in how I relate to others even if I do not share their custom of mind. Every moment in the world of human exchanges is an opportunity to extend and raise the standard for the meaning of ethical behavior.

This idea that ethics and the practicing of ethics cannot exist without God, Ruler/enforcer, is quite strange. "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is perceived in some religions as an ethical approach to child rearing, to some other persons it is a barbarous resignation to relying on brute force for enforcement of what is probably a very complex network of unmoving law.
My personal ethical choice is to examine if the rule being violated in the action of the child is legitimately accomplishing anything. Then my perferred mode of operation is to communicate to the child how the violation adversly plays out in the larger picture. Now if that child is even two years old, he is still deserving of verbal leadership first.

In what way is the Biblical God ethical? Is setting up a system where God knows the plan and people don't ethical? If so, in what way do men benefit?