Ethics IS a part of Philosophy ...

[Whyayeman]

That's not completely true.

1) Paul had a visionary experience of the risen Christ, at least that is recorded and generally accepted by Christians as such.
2) Paul received instructions from the Christian community in Syria concerning the Gospel. Paul was familiar with early Christian creedal statements, rites, and hymns.

As I say, an odd use of the word 'witness'. This usage is unique to theology. It wouldn't do in any other context. (Dreams and visions as evidence; hearsay 'evidence' accepted as - well - evidence.) To bring us back to the topic - I have found that quite a few words have special theological 'meanings' that don't square with what philosophers sometimes called 'ordinary language'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can never understand why there is so much emphasis on Paul here when Christ hardly gets a mention. It is almost as it these were Pauline Forums at times.

Actually, I'm not the one who brought Paul up in this thread. It was our friendly 'pagan' friend who did that. As much as I like Paul, this thread doesn't need to focus on him.

(Of course ethics is moral philosophy. I am a little surprised that the point needs to be made.)

I'm surprised that I have to bring it up too. But, there are those who don't seem to yet realize what 'ethics' is.

 

[Ligurian]

It's possibe that Paul read Plato or Aristotle, but we can't really know for sure outside of speculation. So, I'm not one to make Paul out as an advocate of Philosophy in general. I think he was familiar with aspects of Greek thought and was at times indignant with the uses it was put by the Greeks, especially if it was used rhetorically to criticize Jewish faith in God and/or Christ. Still, I don't think Paul's insistence to be careful of the philosophy which was reigning at his time means that he thought it was all "bad" through and through. He just found his "first principles" in God and Christ.

Yes, I think you're right.

Josephus and Paul seem to have many things in common, including Felix and a shipwreck on the way to Rome.

 

[Ligurian]

To me this seems an odd use of the word 'witness', since the two never met. Paul was not there for the events of the Bible. In what sense was Paul a witness?

Agreed.
"Your honor, my friend says he heard some guys talking..."
"Objection!"
"Overruled" or "Sustained"?

Is hearsay ethical?

"The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior."
Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[FireDragon76]

To me this seems an odd use of the word 'witness', since the two never met. Paul was not there for the events of the Bible. In what sense was Paul a witness?

All those New Testament epistles he wrote are part of the Bible. He wrote them during his travels to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the book of Acts. So it's hard to understand how you don't think he wasn't there for biblical events. The book of Acts records he interacted with Christians even before he became a Christian (such as being present and participating in the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr)

So yeah, he was part of events in the Bible.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Josephus and Paul seem to have many things in common, including Felix and a shipwreck on the way to Rome.

According to "Luke" (in Acts). Does Paul mention any of this in his own writings?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Josephus and Paul seem to have many things in common, including Felix and a shipwreck on the way to Rome.

During the 1st century A.D., I think a lot of Jewish folks had experiences like these in common with both Josephus and Paul.

Mediterranean shipwrecks by century​

​

Felix, Marcus Antonius | Encyclopedia.com

FELIX, MARCUS ANTONIUS Roman procurator of Palestine (c. a.d. 53–60) who held St. Paul a prisoner at Caesarea. Felix was a freedman of Antonia, Emperor Claudius's mother, and a brother of Pallas, Claudius's favorite. Source for information on Felix, Marcus Antonius: New Catholic Encyclopedia...

www.encyclopedia.com

And I'm sure their ethical resolve was tested through it all, as well.

 

[Robban]

According to "Luke" (in Acts). Does Paul mention any of this in his own writings?

One thing that stands out from the account of the shipwreck in Acts 27:37.

Why 276 persons onboard?

It has to do with number mystic/symbolism.

John 21:11, why 153 different fish sorts?

Through addition 1+2+3+4+5+6..............

You will arrive at 153, 276 and at 36 you will arrive at 666.

Whatever one's view on this, it is as it is.

 

[Whyayeman]

All those New Testament epistles he wrote are part of the Bible. He wrote them during his travels to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the book of Acts. So it's hard to understand how you don't think he wasn't there for biblical events. The book of Acts records he interacted with Christians even before he became a Christian (such as being present and participating in the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr)

So yeah, he was part of events in the Bible.

Sorry, I should have written 'events of the Gospel', the crucial point of the New Testament. [Too late for an edit to make a difference.]

My point that Paul seems to get equal billing with Jesus is puzzling for me.

 

[Robban]

One thing that stands out from the account of the shipwreck in Acts 27:37.

Why 276 persons onboard?

It has to do with number mystic/symbolism.

John 21:11, why 153 different fish sorts?

Through addition 1+2+3+4+5+6..............

You will arrive at 153, 276 and at 36 you will arrive at 666.

Whatever one's view on this, it is as it is.

My view on this is,

a confirmation of the coming digital age, (already entered into)

 

[Ligurian]

During the 1st century A.D., I think a lot of Jewish folks had experiences like these in common with both Josephus and Paul.

Sure, but probably not all of them had dealings with Felix, followed the Pharisees, and were in Rome at the same time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure, but probably not all of them had dealings with Felix, followed the Pharisees, and were in Rome at the same time.

Yes, I realize this since I'm not unfamiliar with Josephus and Paul. But I'm trying to figure out how this fits in with the OP.

 

[Whyayeman]

I doesn't. I think I might have set this off by my comments on Paul.

There is not much to discuss; ethics is widely accepted as a part of philosophy. Are there any philosophers (rather than sectarian theologians) who have another view?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I doesn't. I think I might have set this off by my comments on Paul.

There is not much to discuss; ethics is widely accepted as a part of philosophy. Are there any philosophers (rather than sectarian theologians) who have another view?

You're right. There isn't much to discuss about how Ethics exists as a branch of Philosophy. But there are a few folks who don't know this. It's surprising, I know.

 

[stevevw]

As a former student of Philosophy at the university level, it has come to my attention that there are a few folks who don't realize that the field of Ethics is actually a branch of Philosophy.

This is a fact, and one that is readily seen within the curricular structures of just about any major university. An example of such is something like Medical Ethics which I took at the university. That class was classified as a philosophy class, not merely as an "ethics" class or a "medical" class. The same was the case with my Business Ethics class. It too was a form of philosophical study, not merely pertaining to the study of "business." There are also standard classes on Ethics which usually fall under the curricular designation of, again, Philosophy, not merely "Ethics and Morality."

So, what does this mean? It means that if and when we take up the mantle of moral inquiry, we're automatically entering into and DOING PHILOSOPHY, it just happens to be 'moral philosophy." It also means that we're automatically opened up to Epistemological and Metaphysical considerations which can, and often do, overlay and are, at times, instrumental within the very conceptual structures of whichever form of Ethics or Ethical systems we are considering or evaluating. These various branches of Philosophy have overlay with one another and are not wholly separate by any stretch of the imagination.

Is there anyone here on this forum who isn't aware that Ethics is a branch of Philosophy? If not, it's time to get educated about this fact.

It's time to get this straight because I see too many instances of various people implying and/or asserting that Ethics isn't Philosophy. This shouldn't be happening and this confusion needs to come to an end.

Comments and complaints or other unjustified counter-arguments may be posted below ...


Thank you for your time!

I agree it begins with epistemics (how we know morality) and that seems philosophical and includes metaphysics. I think when discussing/debating morality we need to take a step back and see the bigger picture throughout history. Appreciate the early thinkers on ethics like Plato and Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, Bentham, Mills and Nietzsche.

How we came to be moral creatures, how its applied to different areas of life, how different cultures see morality, the commonalities of morals throughout different cultures (cross cultural ethics). Even theology, logic, neurology, psychology, sociology, evolution and anthropology play their part in the bigger picture. In some ways even a bit of an understanding of physics and QM can play a part as far as what is real or not (metaphysics).

This is my understanding of morality which takes a bigger philosophical view rather than one that is confined to a specific position such as Christain as opposed to non Christain or Christain as opposed to other religions.

But I wonder just like how there is science and there is philosophy of science that there isn't morality as a seperate discipline like science and then there is moral philosophy. I say this because as far as I understand there are some like Sam Harris who try to take a scientific evdienced based approach which can determine morality as a science without the philosophy. Not that I agree with Harris's views on morality but it came to mind as something to think about.

 

[stevevw]

The dictionary meaning of Philosophy says
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

I think this is the crux of the matter. Most debates I have had eventually end up discussing the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

For materialist this comes down to the 'is and ought' problem. It also brings up the 'Hard problem of Consciousness'. Questions about whether morality can be reduced to an 'is' something objective in the world or whether there are transcendental truths or laws that influence reality.

Most debates get stuck on the 'is and ought' problem as its hard to prove morality in physical terms. As morality cannot be reduced or understood in purely physical terms it inherently involves philosophy and delving into the metaphysical which many people don't appreciate especially if they hold a strong materialist position.

 

[Whyayeman]

The dictionary meaning of Philosophy says
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

I think this is the crux of the matter. Most debates I have had eventually end up discussing the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

For materialist this comes down to the 'is and ought' problem. It also brings up the 'Hard problem of Consciousness'. Questions about whether morality can be reduced to an 'is' something objective in the world or whether there are transcendental truths or laws that influence reality.

Most debates get stuck on the 'is and ought' problem as its hard to prove morality in physical terms. As morality cannot be reduced or understood in purely physical terms it inherently involves philosophy and delving into the metaphysical which many people don't appreciate especially if they hold a strong materialist position.

I would go further. Morality cannot be reduced to physical terms - at all. For a materialist this is tricky to say the least. And that is not all. Abstractions such as poetry, music, happiness, misery and love are irreducible to physical terms, though many materialists have tried. I think all such attempts are likely to fail.

(As a materialist myself, it is a philosophical conundrum for me. Before anyone is tempted to suggest a solution based on religion, let me just reiterate that that would take us into the realm of theology, where all these issues are resolved at once by positing one and only one answer - which I have long ago rejected!)

 

[durangodawood]

.... if and when we take up the mantle of moral inquiry, we're automatically entering into and DOING PHILOSOPHY, it just happens to be 'moral philosophy."

Is this still true if you strictly limit the scope of your inquiry to: "what does _______ divinely revealed text command us"?

 

[Whyayeman]

Is this still true if you strictly limit the scope of your inquiry to: "what does _______ divinely revealed text command us"?

I don't think so. That seems to me to be a particular aspect of theology. Thus I would not regard it as philosophy at all.

A philosopher might inquire into what was meant by the terms: divine, revealed and command. Then ask for who is included in us. By the time these had been sorted out most of us would have wandered off to a better question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is this still true if you strictly limit the scope of your inquiry to: "what does _______ divinely revealed text command us"?

Yes, at various levels it's still true even in a "strictly limited scope" of theological inquiry.

Unfortunately, some people, even Christian people, don't realize this fact.