Entry 7 begins here

My entry dated 20000906:
Two Ethical Geniuses

"...the holy has been acknowledged by us to be loved of God because it is holy, not to be holy because it is loved (of God)" [From Plato's Euthyphro, c 380BC]

A paraphrase of the above quote is that when something is right, God approves of it; it is not right just because of God's approval.

In my humble opinion, Plato is an ethical genius because he was one of the first to recognise that ethics takes priority over religion.

Almost the same kind of attitude is evident in Confucius who lived even earlier. His humanistic stance is obvious in this quote from the Analects:

"Chi Lu asked about serving the spirits. Confucius said, 'If you can't yet serve men, how can you serve the spirits?'"

These insights are all the more remarkable because both men lived at a time when superstition was rife and intimately a part of their cultures.

==================================

Pondicherry's response dated 20000906:
Plato and his Republic Confucius and his Analects

Hard to agree with all things expounded by Plato. I think he would have made the perfect Dictator. Confucius philosopher maybe but would have been a mediore King.

Ethics maybe the body framework, Conscience the mind and Religion the soul. All three needed for a balanced person living within a community

==================================

My response to Pondicherry dated 20000906:
Not perfect but still...

Actually, I was referring specifically to their humanistic stances. There is definitely an elitist streak in Plato but his contribution to logical thinking cannot be denied.

Considering the times from which they sprang from, the achievements of Plato and Confucius remain considerable. Plato's influence on Western civilization was rivalled only by that of Aristotle, his student. Together the ideas of both men with regard to logic and philosophy influenced the thinking of Christian intellectuals (such as Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine) for centuries to come. Confucius's influence was equally strong, and his teachings have dominated Chinese civilization down to this very day.

Entry 6 (backdated entry, dated 20000905) begins here

More ethical food for thought

Is Pornography Evil?

"I am lucky in that I have a body that men like to look at, and I enjoy showing off. But at the end of it all, it's only a body -- I have breasts and genitalia, as does everyone else. I really can't see what the big deal is. I believe that we live in a very sick society because sex is hyped up to be something very magical and mysterious, only talked about in hushed voices, and hidden from the children. It's the most natural thing we've got. Does seeing a breast corrupt? How can it when everyone has them? Sexual activity is seen as dangerous and labeled pornography -- why? Nearly everyone on the planet does it -- everyone has the equipment. What's the problem? My views are simple: sex is natural. We all have bodies, but we are told sex is dirty, not to be talked about, that it will corrupt our children. We are banned from looking at it. Yet the most horrific scenes of violence and murder are almost encouraged. We give our children toy weapons; our films and books are full of violence and murder. And people tell me I'm corrupting our society. It's sick." (Nicki Lewis, Pornographic Model)

By the way, amazona.... I never said that pimps are necessarily immoral. Only those who FORCE others to prostitute themselves are immoral.

Isn't ethics interesting? ;-))

Entry 5 dated 20000909:

Belief in God vs Morality

"...only if you have no conscience and you don't believe in an Almighty God" (jackpolo)

Having a conscience is a given. Everybody cannot help but have a conscience.

Believing in god on the other hand is another thing altogether. I am not too sure if you are implying that morality goes hand in hand with belief in God. That would be a totally false idea.

Morality has to do with man's relations to his fellow man. No belief in god is necessary for a person to behave morally.

Religion primarily has to do with man's relations to his god. A man could be motivated to be moral because of this belief. But it should also be borne in mind that religious persons are not necessarily moral. Hitler, for instance, was a Christian.

Entry 4 begins here

jackpolo's entry dated 20000906:
Prof Lee Chun Wah-your comments plse?

You have expressed your views about ethics, and having been the first the start the thread rolling on this issue, perhaps you would care to share further your views, stance and comments re:

1) the relative importance of each: 1) conscience 2) ethics and 3) religion so as in your own words"to make society a more liveable place for all."

2) The issue of Prostitution both ethical and moral in relation to: a) the pimp b) the willing prostitute c) the unwilling prostitute d) the act of prostitution and e) the willing customer(ie.lonely men)

It will be interesting for me to learn from and to hear the views of a man of higher academic abilities. Thank you.

===========================

The Prof's response to jackpolo dated 20000906:
Responding to JackPolo with thanks...

I would like to respond to the mail from Jackpolo - 12:46am Sep 6, 2000 SGT. With regards to

1) the relative importance of each: 1) conscience 2) ethics and 3) religion so as in your own words" to make society a more liveable place for all."

Interestingly, I am currently also having a discussion with my former professors in theology on issues related to what you have listed here. Having been trained in the tradition of Notre Dame (among other scholarly places), I would take "conscience" as the moral imperative in life. Kant had argued that this element is fundamental in shaping how we ought to act. The rest such as ethics and religion are no less important; they are directional anchors.

With respect to 2) The issue of Prostitution both ethical and moral in relation to: a) the pimp b) the willing prostitute c) the unwilling prostitute d) the act of prostitution and e) the willing customer(ie.lonely men...

The second issue that you listed above is complex. I submit that both ethically and morally prostitution is inadmissible. However, as you have pointed out, there are the willing and unwilling prostitute, the pimp (or must I say manipulator), the act and the customer, this entire platform of players is a social problematic that cannot be resolved easily. I have no solution for this issue. But I do hold the belief that there are prostitutes who are are compelled by circumstances to partake in it. Very sad, indeed. Of course, the act is not love or emotional joy; in my view, it lies in the profane level of physical "fun", probably demeaning to the idea of being human.

Yes, there is the economic transaction of paid sexual services. However, as a society, we need to level up the livelihood of everyone to the extent possible. It would be disastrous if we hold the view that as long as there is a seller and a buyer that the prostitutional act is justified. Being responsible human beings, we ought to be all embracing of others' welfare too. Our conscience ought to prevent us from sliding into this drain of moral decay.

I thank you for your participation in this discussion. If you are interested in talking about issues in media culture, let me know. In any case, media culture is one of my many areas of work at NTU. Drop me a note anytime at [tcwlee@ntu.edu.sg]. Assoc Prof LEE Chun Wa

==================================

My response to the prof dated 20000907:
Questions for the Prof

Prof Lee...

How is sex as physical fun "profane"?

Why is engaging in commercial sex "probably demeaning to the idea of being human"?

How is condoning prostitution akin to "sliding into this drain of moral decay"?

It seems to be that we are needlessly repressive when it comes to matters pertaining to sex. It is a natural need, just as food or drink. When no exploitation is involved, why create guilt about the practice unnecessarily?

====================================

Entry 3 begins here

Pondicherry's post dated 20000905:
ETHICS, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION !

Ethics-the science of morals. Conscience-the moral sense of right and wrong. Religion- a system of faith and worship. they are all important and have a role to play in human lives. Even so, life is not perfect, because we are humans with human frailties!

Religion often guides the conscience- so it has its role to play Ethics- the science of morals may not be as potent as religion, which although may demand faith rather than logic. What is logical may not necessarily always be ethical!

I tend to agree with you Jackpolo,"let conscience be my guide!

==============================

My response dated 20000905:
What is conscience?

From where does our conscience spring? From the environment, I guess -- over the years, as a child grows up, he imbibes the values of his parents, his teachers and his peers. In transactional analysis, the conscience part of our personality consists of the PARENT component (the other two being ADULT and CHILD).

Is conscience a reliable guide to behaviour? In most cases involving conformity to societal values the answer is largely yes. But there are some cases when we cannot just rely on our consciences.

Take the use of pirated software for instance. How many are innocent? Does it prick our consciences that we are stealing from others? I suspect not much because the practice is so ubiquitous. And it is so easy to rationalise and ignore our consciences anyway. The CHILD in us wants to have something for (almost) nothing.

Here is where ethics can play a role to try and clarify the case through rational thinking. Without such thinking, we may continue to do the wrong thing in a mindless way, just because it is the usual way that society operates. Thinking about one's actions regardless of one's conscience is calling upon the ADULT component of our personality.

Deciding to be ethical however requires discipline and will. It is not enough to know right from wrong. The real challenge is to translate knowledge into action. Theoretically though, ethical reasoning is superior to just relying on our conscience.

Just more musings.

(Both postings are dated 20000905)

Entry 2 begins here.

My post dated 20000905:
Is prostitution immoral?

In conventional terms, undoubtedly so. But if you think about it rationally, it is not necessarily the case.

The prostitute provides a service for a fee. Workers everywhere provide their services; in return they receive their salaries. In that sense, workers are prostituting themselves too.

When people think of prostitutes as immoral, I suppose the issue is that the service they provide is sex. How is providing sexual services considered immoral? Sex, like food, is a basic need. Would you call cooks and waiters immoral?

Some people have needs that they cannot satisfy in conventional ways -- they may be lonely people, for instance, who are lacking in social skills. So they visit sex workers (the preferred term for prostitutes, which is not value-neutral). How are the sex workers immoral in providing such a service?

I don't pretend to have all the answers. Am just thinking out loud. But I would never hastily conclude that just because sex workers provide sex, that they are immoral. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

=======================

Response by lincolnsoo dated 20000905:
Witness, so Prostitution is moral immoral or amoral?

Witnessing the postings I don't think anyone made the statement that prostitution is immoral. In fact a person who believes in ethics can argue it is moral. It is a service. No one did the judging. Are you judging witness?

=======================

My response to lincoln dated 20000905:
What do you think?

Did I say that anyone make that statement?

Actually however, amizona did give a hint about the issue: "For example every profession has its own code of ethics. So even a professional prostitute can say "I have got my code of ethics, I don't just take money I provide a service! and I will only get paid if my client is happy" But we may argue about the moral issue with regards to prostitiution."

Notice the "But" as if to disagree with his previous sentence.

Take it that I was inspired to muse about the topic because of amizona's posting.

Me judge? Nope, I wouldn't dare.

So what's YOUR take on prostitution?

==============================

bolehtahan's response dated 20000905:
Maybe better to be ethical like witness!

So if I am religious, chances are prostitutes are out for me because religions believe in abstinence from pros.

If I am man of conscience also difficult because conventional societal socialization norms says hey prostitution is not morally good for me.

But if I keep to ethics and I believe prostitutes are ethical -they provide a service well I am helping them too ..OK lah! I think I am ethical

==============================

My response to bolehtahan dated 20000905
Be free to think!

Yup... you are free to think. Soar like the bird. Break free from holy books and social norms. After all, Sartre did say long ago that "Existence precedes Essence": that we are here is undeniable, but what we can become is entirely up to us.

=======================

amazona's response dated 20000905:
Don't add to what I said please

Witness I think you have over =interpreted me here. What makes you think I agree or disagree? with my first statement.

I am merely pointing out that ethically prostitutes may have a code of conduct and feel they provide a service to others. But of course morally there could be differences in opinion about such a service? Now what did I agree or disagree?

Now maybe you should tell lincoln your stance rather than put his question back to him.I am interested to know also if you think prostitution is "moral immoral or amoral?"

=============================

My response to amazona dated 20000905
Prostitution is....

...a way to make a living. Insofar as it provides a useful service for men who cannot (or do not wish to) obtain sexual gratification in other ways, I would tend to think that it is an honest profession that needs to be better acknowledged. The person who forces another to prostitute herself is the one who is immoral. So if a woman enters into the profession of her own free will, she's making a career choice which should not automatically disqualify her from being thought of as a moral person.

Entry 1 dated 20000905 begins here

Better Ethics than Religion

Ethics concerns how we should conduct ourselves in this world, bearing in mind that we have to live in close proximity with other beings, both human and otherwise. Many of the ethical concerns will centre around our relationships with other human beings, but this does not preclude concerns with animals and plants as well. A rational mind is all one needs to reflect on the ethical principles one wishes to adopt.

Religion deals with the non-material aspects of the universe. Insofar as it is difficult to deal with what cannot be experienced with the senses either directly or indirectly, all kinds of religious claims may be made, and are made, with no reliable methods of distinguishing which are true, and which false. Religion therefore is based on faith and is quite incongruous with logic.

Is ethics still important today? One would have to think so, since relationships demand decision-making all the time. To conduct one's life without reference to any ethical principles, in fact, already betrays a kind of ethical attitude. Hedonists may sometimes think that ethics is irrelevant but actually their ethical principle is that pleasure is the only good.

Beautiful ethical principles, like scientific laws, should be economical. They should be simple and easy to remember and yet applicable over a wide range of circumstances. The so-called golden rule (Do unto others as you would have others do to you; OR do not do to others as you would not have them do to you.) is an example of such a principle, in my opinion.

Secular humanism is a field of inquiry that has given up on religion but not on ethics.

I am a secular humanist.