Ethics Wk 2 Essay

 1) Respond to the key points of the lecture:

• "Every framework—from the modern secular to the traditional religious—is informed by certain principles, even if assumed and unbeknownst to those within the framework. In other words, one's ethical framework is derived from a set of principles about reality." I have to agree with this; I think all forms of ethics and morality is informed by how one understands reality. If someone has a primarily modernest perspective of the sacred, they may view personal relationships as important and sacred - wether they use that wording or not - but they may not see anything spiritual, sacred, or religiously signifigant in nature. Then there are those like me who are more traditional in their religious perspectices that find that there is a sacred message in how nature operates; that everything around has a connection to the divine energy of life. Each view influences how one sees a situation ethically. The modernist may see nothing wrong with fracking, for example, as it provides resources for society, while the traditionalist will see the ethical implications of harm to the earth. One coudl argue that ethically fracking benefits people economically and thus is good - while it harms the earth (and people physically...) and is thus bad. Both perspectives stand firm and have their ethical grounded in their perspective of what is sacred. 
• "There is a wide diversity of ways of being religious, and of ways of being ethical." Once again, I have to agree. Take the example of abortion...  even within a religion there is a wide array of ethical perspectives on it. Even within the wide variety of religious perspectives within the same religion  there is ethical diveristy. Take Christianity; some fundementalists may support abortion because the bible says that the fetus is property, not a person or values the life of the mother over the fetus (Exodus 21:22-25) while others would quote scripture condemning it as murder (Genesis 1:26-27). Then you have those that are modernist, in which abortion would be viewed as healthcare and supported, as the health and happiness of the mother is what is important and sacred; while traditionally it could be argued as ethically supported or dammnable. There are a wide variety of religious perspectives within a single religion, and as such multiple ethical perspectives - this gets even more convaluted when you bring in the wide diversity of religions all existing in the same spehere. There are 3 ethical perspectives on abortion: it is ethically approved, ethically damned, or only okay under certain circumstances... how people find themselves in each category is usually decided on how they fall in their religous perspective. 
• "Religious diversities include: interreligious diversity, intrareligious diversity, and a diversity of ways of of being religious in the modern world." This feels like just a repetition of the previous two statements combined and thus I feel like my previous responses sums up how I feel the accuracy of it is. 
  

 

2) Explain a salient metaphysical point and a corresponding ethical point taken from the Animal Sacrifice reading, or one of your own realization but in some connection to the reading.

I may have a unpopular perspective on animal sacrifice. I fall into the traditional lines of thinking in which I believe that pray animals, their spirits, volunteer to be eated and killed for the survival of the human species and other species found in life. Metaphysically, their spirits are sentient and their personal sacrfice ensures the survival of the world around them. Take the deer... its meat feeds pumas, wolves, humans, buzzards; its carcas feeds the bugs and as it decomposes its nutrients in the soil will feed the plants. This is why, ethically, to me hunting is totoally fine and valid - especially if the spirit is thanked and the body is honored. However how does this translate over to the ethics of cattle farms? These cows are raised with the intention of being eated, how is that ethically the same? One could ague metaphysically the spirits chose that life and thus are consenting to the fate that awaits them; ethically we should honor them the same way. Thank the spirit of the cow as you cook it; process the meat with respect and honor. All death is a sacrifice - be it ritually as a bridge to the divine or "secularly" by which we are seeking nourishment through ingesting their life force and physical body. If all death is voluntary, on a metaphysical level, then one must honor that through ethical consumption .

3) Take an example of something with which you disagree on an ethical basis, and explain how the practice is ethical in some way—not totally, but in some way. Use here a hermeneutics of generosity rather than one of suspicion. Do not feel that you have to suspend your own ethical judgement. Rather, by virtue of your ethical judgement, see what good there exists in this matter with which you disagree. In addition to mentioning the good in this practice, you are very welcome to write at length about how you disagree with it.

An example of this, for me, would be the expectation of purity imposed on women. This is an ethical practice that I disagree with whole heartedly, however I can see why some people believe it to be good. On a modernist, non spiritual view, it promotes safer health -- its hard to get an STI if you are celibate until marriage. However, it is an unfair and unequal expectation given that society expects the opposite from men. Spiritually there are many religions who view sex out of wedlock as sin. I personally do not understand how or why it would be deemed so, but the religious ethical practice would once again boil down to safer health. In a more nefarious possibility, having "pure" women means having inexpereinced women who do not know what to expect from a partner; this makes them easier to control, manipulate, and mistreat. These explanations boil down to a social framework, backed by a religiously imposed ethical practice. On a spiritual level, if sex were to actually be a sin, withholding it in the name of purity would present a more "clean" and "worthy" soul to their partner and God. 

Writing about why I disagree with this practice while remaining as non-judgmental as possible is difficult. I believe in the sacred of all people and nothing can tarnish a person's soul. Sex is a valuable tool and a sacred means of worship - it acts as a means of sacred connection between souls, as well as an offering to both the Divine/Sacred at large and to the divinity within one's self. Pleasure is a gift that has been given to us by the divine; pleasure itself is divine so long as one remains balanced in life; pleasure is a blessing. To deny oneself of this blessing, freely given to us by the Divine/God/Spirit/the gods/etc is to turn our backs on the Divine Sacred itself. There is power in pleasure, there is freedom, and in giving into it we are able to taste divine presence -- if done with sacred intention. Beauty, love, pleasure, and freedom are all gifts given to us that we benefit nothing from denying and refusing. Life is good, the world is full of blessed experiences and means to connect with divine presence. There are some that feel that connection with divinity through watching the ocean, there are others who feel it as they surrender control to an orgasm. 

Now, this only applies to ethical sex practices. Sexual intimacy performed with ill intent, manipulation, coersion, or rape does not fall into this category of the sacred. When sex is performed ethically, with true love and intimacy, we are not made dirty; sacred sex can make us experience pure divine presence, both winthin ourselves, within our partners, and around us as we perform the practice. The experience of communing with the divine can make us "pure". Denying ourselves the beauty, joy, and love of this experience and communion with the sacred is a sad thing, a spiritual harm, and does not even begin to touch on the social and psychological ramifications of purity culture.