Support for the REUEP

Post Reply
ArlissWhiteside
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:42 pm

Support for the REUEP

Post by ArlissWhiteside »

Some of the writing about Humanianity states that the REUEP is arbitrary. I think it is arbitrary only in the sense of arbitrarily stopping infinite recursion, trying to state still more general beliefs. Recursion was halted when the statement was considered usefully general and also sufficiently specific. The REUEP is NOT arbitrary in the dictionary sense:

* arbitrary: (adjective) Based on individual discretion or judgment; not based on any objective distinction, perhaps even made at random. (From Wiktionary)

Perhaps the best support of the REUEP is that we have not yet thought of a better Rational and Ultimate Ethical (or moral) Principle. When a better principle is thought of, the current principle can and will be updated.

Another support for the REUEP is that it means essentially the same things as my “Christian ultimate moral belief” stated as:

* We should actively love all persons, where the verb love means acting only to promote the well-being of the person loved.

I think many Christians would accept this statement of the Christian ultimate moral belief. Of course, many Christians would use somewhat different words. However, I think most corresponding Christian statements would mean essentially the same things, and also mean essentially the same things as the REUEP.

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Support for the REUEP

Post by wvanfleet »

ArlissWhiteside wrote:Some of the writing about Humanianity states that the REUEP is arbitrary. I think it is arbitrary only in the sense of arbitrarily stopping infinite recursion, trying to state still more general beliefs. Recursion was halted when the statement was considered usefully general and also sufficiently specific. The REUEP is NOT arbitrary in the dictionary sense:

* arbitrary: (adjective) Based on individual discretion or judgment; not based on any objective distinction, perhaps even made at random. (From Wiktionary)
That is just one of the definitions of the term. The meaning of "arbitrary" in this case is that although all lower level ethical beliefs, rules of conduct, and principles can be (within rational ethics, but not authoritarian ethics) legitimated by showing consistency with a higher level (more general) ethical principle, this is not true of the highest level one (REUEP). Where this is written about, I believe that meaning is explained.
Perhaps the best support of the REUEP is that we have not yet thought of a better Rational and Ultimate Ethical (or moral) Principle. When a better principle is thought of, the current principle can and will be updated.
Yes, I agree.
Another support for the REUEP is that it means essentially the same things as my “Christian ultimate moral belief” stated as:

* We should actively love all persons, where the verb love means acting only to promote the well-being of the person loved.

I think many Christians would accept this statement of the Christian ultimate moral belief. Of course, many Christians would use somewhat different words. However, I think most corresponding Christian statements would mean essentially the same things, and also mean essentially the same things as the REUEP.
The REUEP does not state that we have to "love" (whatever that means) an individual in order to say that we should promote his/her welfare. Also, the REUEP speaks generally about promotion of the survival of our species and of the good life for everyone, now and in the future, so that there may be things we should do, such as working on a cure for Ebola, that are not immediately evidently a manifestation of "love" for all beings. I also think that many, many Christians would advocate for the punishment of and revenge against many individuals that had done things that caused suffering. It becomes a rather tricky linguistic process for a Christian to say that our wishing to punish and get revenge on certain individuals is a manifestation of our "love" for them or is consistent with "love" for them.

I see Christianity as one of our many religions, and that it and other religions are improving in certain ways, that improvement being in the direction of the REUEP. I don't think that all Christians would commit themselves to the REUEP at this point in time, but I believe that this will increasingly happen for Christians and members of or advocates of other religions.

I believe that your effort to show consistency between the Humanian ultimate ethical principle and the Christian ultimate ethical principle is an example of the movement of many Christians in the direction of Humanianity, and of course I think that is good.

ArlissWhiteside
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:42 pm

Re: Support for the REUEP

Post by ArlissWhiteside »

Another support for the REUEP is that it means essentially the same things as my “Christian ultimate moral belief” stated as:

* We should actively love all persons, where the verb love means acting only to promote the well-being of the person loved.
I know that not all persons who claim to be Christian would agree with my Christian ultimate moral belief, perhaps not even a majority. I stated this because I think many would agree, providing support for the REUEP. I think this Christian ultimate moral belief supports efforts to cure Ebola, and opposes punishment of and revenge against individuals that had done things which caused suffering

Post Reply