Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts
I brought up feelings because it seems you hold the scientific method as the one and only means of determining what is logical. What about a situation like this, then: A friend of yours tells you of a dream he had the night previous in which he saw a dog oddly standing on a residential roof. To his surprise, he happened upon this odd scene during his morning commute. Now, in order to logically prove that his dream was prophetic, you'd have to consider probabilities of many things (e.g., a coincidental occurrence, your friend's honesty, etc.), but I doubt the scientific method would have anything to do with it. Instead, you'd rely on what you know of the person and of life in general (things that would fall under what I previously called "feelings") to come to a very logical conclusion that would have no place as "scientific proof."
Does the LDS religion view ethics as teleological or deontological?
Both, in addition to being virtuous. Because of the nature of god, He gives commands that, if followed, will result in the best possible consequence: "the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39) Thus, a morally right action, like being honest, is according to command (deontological), has good consequences (teleological), and makes one a better person (virtuous).
(Of course, the LDS church doesn't have a published official answer to this questions. The above represents my opinion on the subject.)
RSS
RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts
I'd also like to add that the concept of faith shouldn't seem that odd, even to the atheist. Faith is an essential part of any action, as perfect knowledge is beyond the grasp of everyone. Of course, there are statistical principles (such as Bayes' Theorem) that outline ways to take a best guess at what is likely and not so likely, but these do not limit the choices to what is scientific. Specifically, there are many instances in which determining what is probable relies wholly on unscientific things like "feelings."
Feelings are not statistical data; when confronting guesses about the future, your feelings typically result from application of your knowledge of how past events made you feel applied to the present. They are more of a factor in utility calculations than in determining probability. I might be hesitant to do something highly improbable if it resulted in very unpleasant feelings, which is not actually a commentary on probability but on my risk assessment criteria.
Then again, principles of science aren't necessarily excluded from religious decision making. Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon contains a great analogy of the process of an idea becoming knowledge and how faith is integral in that conversion.
Does the LDS religion view ethics as teleological or deontological?
View Full Discussion